>: 


Public  Opinion  in  Philadelphia 

1789-1801 


A  DISSERTATION 

PRESENTED   TO   THE   FACULTY   OF   BRYN   MAWR   COLLEGE 

IN    PART    FULFILLMENT    OF    THE    REQUIREMENTS    FOR 

THE   DEGREE   OF   DOCTOR   OF    PHILOSOPHY 


BY 

MARGARET  WOODBURY 


REPRINTED  F  ROM  THE  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY,  VOLUME  V. 


DURHAM,  N.  C. 

THE  SEEMAN  PRINTERY 

1919 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

PREFACE  5 

CHAPTER  I 
NEWSPAPERS  AND  EDITORS  

1.  The  Existence  of  a  Party  Press 

2.  The  Federalist  Press  11 

3.  The  Republican  Press  20 

4.  Miscellaneous  31 

CHAPTER  II 

THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM  36 

1.  Nature  of  the  Criticisms 36 

2.  The  Funding  of  the  Public  Debt 38 

3.  The  Assumption  of  State  Debts 54 

4.  The   Excise    57 

5.  The  Bank  60> 

CHAPTER  III 

FOREIGN  RELATIONS   64 

1.  Neutrality  64 

2>  The  Jay  Treaty  82 

Troubles  With  France  90 

CHAPTER  IV 

POLITICAL   PARTIES   97 

1.  The  Origin  of  Parties  97 

2.  Constitutional  Interpretation  100 

3.  Political   Issues   105 

(a)  The  Seat  of  Government  106 

(b)  Democratic  Societies  and  the  Whiskey  Rebel 
lion   Ill 

(c)  Titles    120 

(d)  Election  Methods  and  Political  Campaigns 123 

I/CONCLUSION    130 

BlBLIORAPHY    133 

415627 


PREFACE 

Since  the  publication  of  the  first  volume  of  Professor  Mc- 
Master's  epoch-making  History  of  the  American  People,  in  1883, 
the  newspaper  and  the  pamphlet  have  come  into  their  own. 
They  have  been  made  the  basis  of  many  books,  monographs  and 
articles,  the  most  important  perhaps  being  Mr.  Rhodes's  clever 
analysis  of  public  opinion  in  the  United  States  from  1850  to  1877. 
In  spite  of  this  activity  a  large  part  of  the  field  still  remains 
unworked.  A  thorough  analysis  of  the  newspaper  and  pamphlet 
literature  of  the  Federalist  Period  (1789-1801)  should  throw 
light  upon  our  political  and  constitutional  development  during 
those  important  formative  years  and  should  also  make  available 
some  very  useful  social  and  economic  material. 

The  newspapers  and  pamphlets  of  those  days  were  un 
doubtedly  important  factors  in  shaping  public  opinion.  Their 
tone  was  always  vigorous  and  they  were  either  decidedly  for  or 
against  the  measures  of  the  government.  Examples  of  letters 
which  appeared  first  in  newspapers  and  later  as  pamphlets,  and 
which  exerted  a  great  influence,  were  the  articles  of  Hamilton, 
Madison,  and  Jay  in  the  Federalist,  and  Hamilton's  Camillus 
letters  written  in  support  of  the  Jay  Treaty.  Some  good  ex 
amples  taken  from  an  earlier  period  are  to  be  found  in  Dick 
inson's  Farmer's  Letters  and  Paine's  Common  Sense. 

A  series  of  local  studies  of  this  type  of  literature  ought  to 
be  useful  as  a  basis  for  a  general  history  of  public  opinion 
which  is  yet  to  be  written.  In  such  a  series,  Pennsylvania  de 
serves  special  consideration  because  Philadelphia  was  the  seat  of 
the  federal  government  and  the  chief  center  of  political  in 
trigue.  The  names  of  four  or  five  Philadelphia  editors  stand 
out  as  particularly  important  during  the  period.  Philip  Fre- 
neau  of  the  National  Gazette,  Benjamin  Franklin  Bache  and 
William  Duane  of  the  Aurora  were  the  greatest  of  the  Anti- 


Federalist  editors,  while  John  Fenno  of  the  Gazette  of  the 
United  States  and  William  Cobbett  of  Porcupine's  Gazette  al 
ways  upheld  the  policy  of  the  government.  These  were  the 
newspapers  which  exerted  the  most  influence  and  which  the 
leading  men  of  the  time  used  as  vehicles  for  communicating 
their  views  to  the  public.  MARGARET  WOODBURY. 

May  10,  1919. 


Public  Opinion  in  Philadelphia,  1789-1801 

CHAPTER  I 
NEWSPAPERS  AND  EDITORS 

/.     The  Existence  of  a  Party  Press 

At  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  Philadelphia  had 
more  newspapers  than  any  other  city  in  the  United  States. 
They  were,  as  a  rule,  well  edited,  according  to  the  standards 
which  then  prevailed,  and  they  compared  favorably  with  the 
best  of  their  contemporaries  in  New  York,  Boston,  Baltimore 
and  London.  As  purveyors  of  news  they  were  far  behind  the 
press  of  a  later  date,  but  they  were  probably  more  influential  in 
the  field  of  politics.  Even  when  the  editors  were  known  to  be 
political  hacks  and  bound  by  ties  of  gratitude  to  support  their 
party  programme,  they  were  important  factors  in  shaping  pub 
lic  opinion. 

The  newspapers  of  this  early  period  were  much  smaller 
than  those  of  the  present  day,  the  average  size  being  about 
four  pages  of  seventeen  by  twenty-one  inches.  There  was  little 
or  no  system  in  the  arrangement  of  the  news.  Usually  the  first 
and  last  pages  were  given  up  to  advertisements,  such  as  notices 
of  the  sale  of  real  estate  and  merchandise;  departure  and  ar 
rival  of  vessels;  notices  of  runaway  slaves;  schedules  of  stage 
coaches ;  announcements  of  various  educational  institutions  and 
of  the  publication  of  books  and  pamphlets.  The  second  and 
third  pages  were  usually  devoted  to  communications  from  for 
eign  sources  and  to  the  activities  of  Congress,  together  with 
comments  of  the  editor  upon  questions  of  the  hour  and  con 
tributions  from  the  subscribers.  There  was  nothing  correspond 
ing  to  our  present  day  editorial  page. 

So  far  as  national  issues  were  concerned,  there  was  no  dis 
tinctly  partisan  press  in  Philadelphia  until  1791.  In  the  issue  of 
the  Aurora  for  October  23,  1790,  the  editor  comments  as  fol 
lows  on  the  scarcity  of  news :  "As  to  domestic  politics,  no  party 
disputes  to  raise  the  printer's  drooping  spirits ;  not  a  legisla- 


8-''  « -S'MI¥H  -  Gb'Lt.'EGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

ture  sitting  to  furnish  a  few  columns  of  debates,  not  even  so 
much  as  a  piece  of  private  abuse  to  grace  a  paper— [-Zounds, 

"\ 

people  now  have  no  spirit  in  them!  .  .  .  Now  not  even  an  ac 
cident,  not  a  duel,  not  a  suicide,  not  a  fire,  not  a  murder,  not 
so  much  as  a  single  theft  worthy  of  notice.  O !  tempora,  O ! 
mores." 

It  is  interesting  to  contrast  this  article  with  one  which  ap 
peared  in  the  Gazette  of  the  United  States  less  than  two  years 
later.1  A  correspondent  relates  a  conversation  which  he  had 
with  a  friend  who  had  traveled  extensively  in  Europe  and  who 
made  the  following  observations  on  the  bitter  factions  now 
existing  in  this  country,  lamenting  the  way  in  which  the  news 
papers  took  part  in  the  quarrels :  "Factions  are  almost  harm 
less  in  England — and  as  our  language  is  the  same  and  our  form 
of  government  nearly  similar,  we  are  apt  to  conclude  that  fac 
tions  will  be  harmless  also  in  this  country.  A  great  many  per 
sons  seem  to  like  the  bustle  of  wrangling  parties,  and  the  Prin 
ters  think  their  Gazettes  insipid  and  in  danger  of  losing  cus 
tom,  if  they  refuse  to  mix  a  portion  of  gall  with  their  ink.  .  . 
Accordingly,  we  see  the  government  bespattered  and  the  heads 
of  departments  and  members  of  Congress  blackened ;  and  all 
the  arts  of  insinuation  and  deception  put  in  practice  to  make 
the  people  as  angry  as  the  writers  seem  to  be. 

"We  are  told  that  the  measures  of  government  have  done 
but  little  good,  and  that  little  was  not  intended — that,  however, 
they  have  done  infinite  mischief  which  was  intended  and  is  a 
part  of  a  plan  of  iniquity  contrived  by  those  who  administer 
the  offices  of  the  government.  This  evil,  they  tell  us,  is  still 
spreading  and  will  be  fatal  to  the  property  rights  and  liberty 
of  the  many,  in  order  by  their  plunder  to  aggrandize  the  few. 
That  all  these  consequences  are  the  more  to  be  dreaded  and  are 
the  more  certain,  as  the  country  is  too  extensive  to  be  subject 
to  one  free  government,  and  the  constitution  has  not  made  a 

proper  definition  and  a  due  separation  of  its  powers 

Inflammatory  addresses  to  the  passions  of  men  have  a  tendency 

'June  6,  1792. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  9 

to  create  disturbances  and  convulsions  in  all  countries — but  they 
are  peculiarly  alarming  in  our  country  from  the  nature  of  our 
government  and  the  temper  of  our  citizens.  .  .  Our  gov 
ernment  is  too  new  and  too  feeble,  and  its  powers  too  much 
divided  with  the  state  governments  to  bear  the  convulsion  of 
vindictive  factions." 

The  following  quotation  from  a  pamphlet  of  1794  leaves  no 
doubt  of  the  existence  of  a  party  press  at  that  time :  "I  will 
examine  a  little  further  the  uses  that  are  made  by  the  faction 
in  promoting  their  plan  through  the  instrumentality  of  news 
papers  and  pamphlets.  This  art  is  not  original ;  it  has  been 
successfully  employed  by  all  the  corrupt  courts  of  Europe.  I 
have  already  mentioned  that  a  new  courtly  Gazette  started  up 
at  the  commencement  of  the  government.  This  and  others  in 
several  principal  towns  have  been  industriously  employed  in 
proclaiming  the  praises  of  the  fiscal  administration  and  ascrib 
ing  all  the  prosperity  the  country  has  experienced  from  the  en 
joyment  of  peace,  increased  population,  industry,  and  a  good 
government  to  the  revenue  system  and  through  that  system  to 
the  Secretary  who  originated  and  the  speculating  members  who 
support  it.  ... 

"The  courtly  Gazette  and  others  of  the  same  stamp,  sup 
ported  by  the  speculators  and  anonymous  pamphlets,  were  not 
only  employed  in  publishing  eulogies  on  the  secretary  and  the 
fiscal  measures  but  also  in  endeavoring  to  divert  public  confi 
dence  from  all  those  who  opposed  or  censured  them.  Hence 
members  who  disliked  the  measures  were  induced  to  support 
them  from  an  apprehension  that  the  opposition  did  not  arise 
from  true  patriotism  but  from  an  anti-federal  enmity  to  the 
government  itself.  This  impression  though  its  effect  will  be 
but  temporary,  has  been  sufficiently  lasting  to  support  the  min 
isterial  influence  in  the  House  in  the  second  Congress  and  to 
render  it  formidable  in  the  present. 

"The  artful  cry  of  the  danger  of  anti-federalism  is  gradu 
ally  ceasing  to  have  its  effect.  The  more  the  people  examine, 
the  more  they  are  convinced  that  no  body  of  anti-federalists 


10  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

exists  in  the  United  States  and  that  no  design  for  overturning 
the  government  has  been  entertained  since  the  commencement 
of  its  operation.  .  .  .  The  monarchical  party  are  the  only 
anti-federalists  in  the  United  States  and  by  them  only  the  Fed 
eral-Republican  principles  of  government  are  in  danger  of  be 
ing  overturned."1 

The  following  extracts  from  the  letters  of  Washington  and 
Adams  constitute  a  reluctant  tribute  to  the  influence  of  the  Re 
publican  press.  "The  publications  in  Freneau's  and  Bache's  pa 
pers  are  outrages  on  common  decency  and  they  progress  in  that 
style,  in  proportion  as  their  pieces  are  treated  with  contempt  and 
are  passed  by  in  silence,  by  those  at  whom  they  are  aimed.  The 
tendency  of  them,  however,  is  too  obvious  to  be  mistaken  by  men 
of  cool  and  dispassionate  minds  and  in  my  opinion,  ought  to 
alarm  them ;  because  it  is  difficult  to  prescribe  bounds  to  the 
effect."2  "Our  anti-federal  scribblers  are  so  fond  of  rotation,  that 
they  seem  disposed  to  remove  their  abuse  from  me  to  the  Presi 
dent.  Bache's  paper,  which  is  nearly  as  bad  as  Freneau's,  begins 
to  join  in  concert  with  it  to  maul  the  President  for  his  drawing- 
rooms,  levees,  declining  to  accept  of  invitations  to  dinners  and 
tea  parties,  his  birthday  odes,  visits,  compliments,  etc.  I  may  be 
expected  to  be  an  advocate  for  a  rotation  of  objects  of  abuse  and 
for  equality  in  this  particular.  I  have  held  the  office  of  libellee- 
general  long  enough.  The  burden  of  it  ought  to  be  participated 
and  equalized  according  to  modern  republican  principles."3  "The 
causes  of  my  retirement  are  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  Fre- 
neau,  Markoe,  Ned  Church,  Andrew  Brown,  Paine,  Callender, 
Hamilton,  Cobbett  and  John  Ward  Fenno  and  many  others,  but 
more  especially  in  the  circular  letters  of  members  of  Congress 
from  the  southern  and  middle  states.  Without  a  complete  collec 
tion  of  all  these  libels,  no  faithful  history  of  the  last  twenty  years 


1  "A  citizen,"  A  Review  of  the  Revenue  System,  Letter  XIII.     Phila 
delphia,  1794. 

2  Washington    to    Henry    Lee,    July   21,    1793,    Washington's    Writings, 
vol.  XII,  pp.  310-311. 

3  Adams  to  Mrs.  Adams,  January  2,  1794,  Adams's  Works,  vol.  I,  pp. 
460-461. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801          .  11 

can  ever  be  written  nor  any  adequate  account  given  of  the  causes 
of  my  retirement  from  public  life."4 

Adams  had  a  theory  that  the  hostility  of  the  Aurora  to  him  was 
largely  due  to  the  posthumous  influence  of  Franklin.  The  follow 
ing  letter  refers  to  the  controversy  between  Adams  and  Franklin 
at  the  time  of  the  peace  negotiation  in  1782.  "Dr.  Franklin's  be 
havior  had  been  so  excessively  complaisant  to  the  French  ministry 
and  in  my  opinion  had  so  endangered  the  essential  interests  of 
our  country,  that  I  had  been  frequently  obliged  to  differ  from  him 
and  sometimes  to  withstand  him  to  his  face ;  so  that  I  knew  he 
had  conceived  an  irreconcilable  hatred  of  me  and  that  he  had 
propagated  and  would  continue  to  propagate  prejudices,  if  noth 
ing  worse,  against  me  in  America  from  one  end  of  it  to  the  other. 
Look  into  Benjamin  Franklin  Bache's  Aurora  and  Duane's 
Aurora  for  twenty  years  and  see  whether  my  expectations  have 
not  been  verified."5 

2.     The  Federalist  Press 

Until  the  establishment  of  Porcupine's  Gazette  by  Cobbett  in 
1797,  the  Gazette  of  the  United  States  was  the  leading  Federalist 
organ.  Very  little  is  known  about  the  life  of  John  Fenno,  the 
founder  of  the  Gazette.  He  was  born  in  Boston,  Massachusetts, 
August  12,  1751.  He  was  well  educated  and  for  several  years 
was  a  teacher  in  the  Old  South  Writing  School.  The  Gazette 
was  started  in  New  York  in  1789,  and  was  transferred  to  Phil 
adelphia  in  October,  1790,  when  the  seat  of  the  government  was 
removed  to  that  city.  It  was  published  on  Wednesdays  and  Sat 
urdays  at  69  Market  Street,  and  the  subscription  price  was  three 
dollars  a  year.  Fenno  died  in  Philadelphia  of  yellow  fever,  Sep 
tember  14,  1798;  and  the  paper  was  then  published  by  his  nine 
teen-year  old  son,  John  Ward  Fenno,  until  May,  1800,  when  it 
was  taken  over  by  the  owner,  Caleb  P.  Wayne.6 


4  Adams  to  Skelton  Jones,  March  11,   1809,  Adams's   Works,  vol.  IX, 
p.  612. 

5  Adams  to  Dr.  Benjamin  Rush,  April  12,   1809,  Adams's   Works,  vol. 
IX,  p.  619. 

8  J.  T.  Scharff  and  Thompson  Westcott,  History  of  Philadelphia,  1884, 
vol.  Ill,  pp.  1968-1969. 


12  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

The  Fennos  were  zealous  admirers  of  Hamilton,  and  always 
supported  his  political  views  as  well  as  his  financial  and  foreign 
policies.  In  fact,  their  paper  came  to  be  regarded  as  Hamilton's 
official  organ,  and  the  charge  was  freely  made  that  it  received  a 
subsidy  from  the  treasury  department. 

The  aristocratic  tone  of  the  Gazette  was  especially  obnoxious 
to  Jefferson  and  Madison;  and,  as  we  shall  see  later,  it  was 
largely  through  their  efforts  that  Philip  Freneau  was  induced  to 
establish  the  National  Gazette  as  a  counterbalancing  influence. 
In  Jefferson's  correspondence  we  find  frequent  references  to 
Fenno  and  his  paper.  A  few  copies  of  Paine's  Rights  of  Man, 
the  famous  answer  to  Burke's  Reflections  on  the  French  Revolu 
tion,  arrived  in  Philadelphia  about  the  beginning  of  May,  1791. 
On  the  8th  of  May,  Jefferson  wrote  to  Washington  as  follows  : 
"Paine's  answer  to  Burke's  pamphlet  begins  to  produce  some 
squibs  in  our  public  papers.  In  Fenno's  paper  they  are  Burkites, 
in  the  others  Painites."7  In  a  letter  to  William  Short,  written 
July  28,  1791,  Jefferson  also  says:  "Paine's  pamphlet  has  been 
published  and  read  with  general  applause  here.  It  was  attacked 
by  a  writer  under  the  name  of  Publicola,  and  defended  by  a  host 
of  republican  volunteers.  None  of  the  defenders  are  known.  I 
have  desired  Mr.  Remsen  to  make  up  a  complete  collection  of 
these  pieces  from  Bache's  papers,  the  tory-paper  of  Fenno  rarely 
admitting  anything  which  defends  the  present  form  of  govern 
ment  in  opposition  to  his  desire  of  subverting  it  to  make  way 
for  a  king,  lords  and  commons."8  Jefferson's  disapproval  of 
Fenno  was  likewise  expressed  in  a  letter  to  Thomas  Mann  Ran 
dolph:  "I  inclose  you  Bache's  as  well  as  Fenno's  papers.  You 
will  have  perceived  that  the  latter  is  a  paper  of  pure  Toryism, 
disseminating  the  doctrines  of  monarchy,  aristocracy  and  the 
exclusion  of  the  influence  of  the  people."9 

Fenno's    Gazette    and    Porcupine's    Gazette    both    supported 


'Jefferson  to  Washington,  May  8,   1791,  Jefferson's   Writings,  vol.   V, 
p.  328. 

•Ibid.,  p.  361. 

9  May  15,  1791,  Ibid.f  p.  336. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  13 

Hamilton  in  his  feud  with  Adams  during  the  settlement  of  the 
troubles  with  France.  Writing  in  defence  of  his  peace  policy, 
Adams  says :  "A  great  clamor  was  raised  among  the  members 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  out  of  doors,  and  an  abund 
ance  of  squibs,  scoffs  and  sarcasm,  in  what  were  then  called  the 
federal  newspapers,  particularly  Cobbett's  Porcupine  and  John 
Ward  Fenno's  United  States  Gazette.10 

Porcupine's  Gazette  first  appeared  March  4,  1797.  Its  editor 
was  William  Cobbett  who  always  signed  himself  "Peter  Porcu 
pine."  On  September  6,  1799,  the  paper  was  changed  from  a 
daily  to  a  weekly  and  continued  at  Bustleton,  Pennsylvania,  be 
cause  of  the  yellow  fever  in  Philadelphia.  The  Country  Porcu 
pine  was  a  tri-weekly  mailing  edition  of  Porcupine's  Gazette, 
which  contained  all  the  news  matter  but  omitted  the  advertise 
ments  in  order  to  save  postage.  In  a  communication  to  the  public, 
soon  after  its  establishment,  the  editor  says :  "I  wish  my  paper  to 
be  the  rallying  point  for  the  friends  of  government."  He  went  on 
to  say  that  the  subscribers  already  numbered  1,000  and  that  some 
hundreds  of  names  had  not  yet  reached  the  publisher,  and  that 
the  paper  had  more  subscribers  at  Baltimore,  New  York,  and 
other  towns  of  note,  than  any  other  two  papers  published  in 
Philadelphia. 

Cobbett's  chief  object  in  conducting  the  paper  apparently  was 
to  carry  on  a  propaganda  in  favor  of  Great  Britain.  Incidentally 
he  supported  the  domestic  programme  of  the  federal  government, 
or  at  least  that  part  of  it  with  which  Hamilton  was  most  closely 
associated.  As  the  influence  of  the  Gazette  of  the  United  States 
declined,  after  the  death  of  John  Fenno,  September  14,  1798, 
Porcupine's  Gazette  became  for  a  time  the  leading  Federalist 
paper  in  Philadelphia.  The  pacific  attitude  of  President  Adams 
toward  France,  however,  aroused  the  hostility  of  Cobbett;  and 
accordingly  Noah  Webster's  New  York  Minerva  became  the 
official  organ  of  the  administration. 

Cobbett's   life  has   already   been   fully  treated  by   Lewis   T. 


10  Adams's  Works,  vol.  IX,  p.  248.     See  also  p.  612. 


14  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

Melville;11  consequently  the  chief  events  of  his  career  may  be 
passed  over  hastily  in  order  that  more  space  may  be  devoted  to 
his  controversy  with  Dr.  Benjamin  Rush,  all  the  material  avail 
able  for  that  episode  not  having  been  used  by  Mr.  Melville. 

William  Cobbett  was  born  March  9,  1763,  at  Farnham,  Sur 
rey,  England.  His  father  was  a  small  farmer  who  taught  his 
son  the  rudimentary  education  that  he  himself  possessed.  Cob 
bett  worked  upon  his  father's  farm  until  he  was  twenty  years 
old,  when  he  went  to  London  and  secured  a  position  as  clerk  in 
an  attorney's  office.  He  found  the  confinement  very  irksome, 
however,  and  left  this  position,  going  to  Chatham  and  enlisting 
in  the  54th  Regiment  of  Infantry,  which  was  then  serving  in 
Nova  Scotia.  He  devoted  much  of  his  time  while  in  the  army  to 
self-improvement,  and  took  up  the  study  of  English  grammar 
for  the  first  time.  In  December,  1791,  he  received  an  honorable 
discharge  from  the  army,  the  purpose  of  his  retirement  being  to 
bring  certain  of  his  officers  to  court-martial  because  of  their  mis 
conduct  in  office.  The  War  Office  put  every  obstacle  in  the  way 
of  the  court-martial  and  the  decision  rendered  was  that  his 
charges  were  unfounded. 

After  his  marriage  with  Anne  Reid,  February  5,  1792,  Cob 
bett  went  to  France.  The  gathering  war  clouds  making  it  neces 
sary  for  him  to  leave,  he  came  to  America  in  the  autumn  of 
1792,  and  settled  in  Philadelphia.  He  soon  became  the  most  in 
fluential  political  pamphleteer  in  America.  Between  1794  and 
1800  he  published  twenty  pamphlets,  in  most  of  which  he  sup 
ported  the  Federalist  party,  denounced  France,  and  advocated  an 
alliance  with  Great  Britain.  On  March  5,  1797,  he  issued  the 
first  number  of  Porcupine's  Gazette,  founded  as  he  said,  "with 
the  intention  of  annihilating,  if  possible,  the  intriguing,  wicked 
and  indefatigable  faction  which  the  French  had  formed  in  this 
country."  In  the  autumn  of  1797  he  was  sued  for  libel  by  Dr. 
Rush  and  the  decision  was  rendered  in  December  of  1799  in 
favor  of  the  plaintiff.  The  judgment  of  $5,000,  together  with 


11  L.  T.  Melville,  The  Life  and  Letters  of  William  Cobbett  in  England 
and  America.     Two  vols.,  London,  1913. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  15 

$3,000  damages,  ruined  Cobbett  financially,  and  he  returned  to 
England  in  June,  1800.  In  London  he  became  a  book-seller  and 
journalist.  His  Weekly  Political  Register,  established  in  Janu 
ary,  1802,  he  continued  to  publish  until  his  death.  He  prospered, 
and  purchased  for  himself  a  country  estate  where  he  spent  much 
of  his  time. 

Cobbett  was  always  the  foe  of  corruption  and  the  advocate  of 
a  more  liberal  constitution.  Such  views  were  obnoxious  to  the 
British  government  and  he  was  frequently  prosecuted  for  libel. 
In  1816,  he  established  his  Twopenny  Trash,  a  newspaper  which 
advocated  reform  and  had  a  wide  circulation  among  the  working 
classes.  The  powerful  influence  which  this  paper  had  among 
the  poor  increased  the  hostility  of  the  government  towards  Cob 
bett.  Fearing  imprisonment,  he  decided  to  come  back  to  America. 
He  spent  two  years  in  this  country,  1817-1819,  but  took  no 
active  part  in  politics.  On  returning  to  England  he  continued 
his  agitation  for  reform.  His  great  desire  to  sit  in  the  House 
of  Commons  was  at  last  realized  in  1832,  but  he  was  seventy 
years  old  at  the  time  and  did  not  exercise  much  influence.  He 
died  July  18,  1835,  at  his  country  home  at  Farnham.12 

The  origin  of  the  quarrel  between  Dr.  Benjamin  Rush  and 
William  Cobbett  is  thus  told  by  Dr.  Rush  himself  :13  "For  many 
years  after  I  settled  in  Philadelphia,  I  was  regulated  in  my  prac 
tice  by  the  system  of  medicine  which  I  had  learned  from  the 
lectures  and  publications  of  Dr.  Cullen.  But  time,  observations 
and  reflections  convinced  me  that  it  was  imperfect  and  erroneous 
in  many  of  its  parts  ...  I  read,  I  thought,  and  I  observed 
upon  the  phenomena  of  diseases  .  .  .  and  at  length  a  few 
rays  of  light  broke  in  upon  my  mind  upon  several  diseases.  .  .  . 
The  system  I  adopted  was  not  merely  a  speculative  one.  It  led 
to  important  changes  in  the  practice.  .  .  . 

"The  propagation  of  my  new  opinions  had  an  immediate 
influence  upon  my  business.  It  lessened  it  by  precluding  me 


12  Ibid.,  passim. 

"Benjamin   Rush,  A  Memorial  Containing   Travels   Through  Life   or 
Sundry  Incidents  in   the   Life   of,  pp.   61-74. 


16  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

from  consultations,  for  most  of  my  brethren  in  Philadelphia 
were  devoted  to  Dr.  Cullen's  system  of  medicine  and  opposed 
to  the  least  deviation  from  it.  It  would  be  improper  to  ascribe 
my  exclusion  from  consultations  wholly  to  the  influence  of  my 
new  opinions.  The  part  I  took  in  favor  of  my  country  in  the 
American  Revolution  had  left  prejudices  in  the  minds  of  the 
most  wealthy  citizens  of  Philadelphia  against  me,  for  a  great 
majority  of  them  had  been  loyalists  in  principle  and  conduct.  .  . 

"Other  things  contributed  to  offend  my  medical  brethren 
besides  the  novelty  of  my  opinions  and  practice.  I  had  declared 
medicine  to  be  a  science  so  simple  that  two  years'  study,  in 
stead  of  four  or  more,  were  sufficient  to  understand  all  that 
was  true  and  practical  in  it.  I  had  rejected  a  great  number  of 
medicines  as  useless  and  had  limited  the  materia  medica  to  fif 
teen  or  twenty  articles  and  in  order  to  strip  medicine  still  fur 
ther  of  its  imposture,  I  had  borne  a  testimony  against  envelop 
ing  it  in  mystery  or  secrecy  by  Latin  prescriptions  and  by  pub 
lishing  inaugural  dissertations  in  the  Latin  language  in  the 
medical  school  of  Philadelphia.  .  .  .  The  success  which  at 
tended  the  remedies  which  it  pleased  God  to  make  me  the  in 
strument  of  introducing  into  general  practice  in  the  treatment 
of  the  fever  in  1793,  produced  a  sudden  combination  of  all  who 
had  been  either  publicly  or  privately  my  enemies  and  the  most 
violent  and  undisguised  exertions  to  oppose  and  discredit  those 
remedies.  .  .  . 

"To  prevent  the  recurrence  of  the  fever,  I  early  pointed  out 
its  domestic  origin.  In  this  opinion  I  was  opposed  by  nearly 
the  whole  College  of  Physicians,  who  derived  it  from  a  foreign 
country  and  who  believed  it  to  be  a  specific  disease.  They  were 
followed  by  nearly  all  the  physicians  of  Philadelphia.  ...  A 
number  of  cases  of  yellow  fever  occurred  in  the  summer  and 
autumn  of  1794  and  a  few  in  the  same  season  in  1795  and 
1796.  ...  In  the  year  1797,  the  yellow  fever  became  again 
epidemic. 

"Soon  after  the  fever  appeared,  Dr.  Griffiths  published,  with 
out  his  name,  some  plain  and  sensible  directions  to  the  citizens 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  17 

for  the  treatment  of  the  fever.  This  publication  was  ascribed  to 
me  in  Fenno's  paper  and  a  most  virulent  invective  against  me 
connected  with  it.  It  was  soon  afterwards  followed  by  torrents 
of  abuse  in  a  paper  conducted  by  one  Cobbett,  an  English  alien 
who  then  resided  in  Philadelphia.  The  publications  in  these 
two  daily  papers  were  continued  for  nearly  six  weeks  against 
my  practice  and  character,  particularly  against  my  political  prin 
ciples  which  were  those  of  the  federal  republic  of  our  country. 
.  .  .  All  these  different  attacks  upon  my  character  and  prac 
tice  were  well  received  by  many  of  my  fellow  citizens.  Some 
of  them  considered  them  as  a  just  punishment  for  my  political 
principles,  while  many  more  acquiesced  in  them  as  the  probable 
means  of  destroying  the  influence  of  a  man  who  had  aimed  to 
destroy  the  credit  of  their  city,  by  ascribing  to  it  a  power  of 
generating  yellow  fever. 

'Their  design  proved  successful.  They  lessened  my  busi 
ness  and  they  abstracted  so  much  of  the  confidence  of  my  pa 
tients  as  to  render  my  practice  extremely  difficult  and  disagree 
able  among  them.  To  put  a  stop  to  their  injurious  effects  upon 
my  business  and  the  lives  of  my  patients,  I  commenced  civil 
action  against  both  the  printers." 

The  specific  accusations  made  by  Dr.  Rush  against  Cobbett 
are  set  forth  in  the  charge  which  Judge  Shippen  delivered  to 
the  jury  when  he  dismissed  it  to  deliberate  upon  the  case.  They 
are  as  follows  :14  "That  he  (the  defendant)  repeatedly  calls  the 
plaintiff  a  quack,  an  empyric,  charges  him  with  intemperate 
bleeding,  injudiciously  administering  Mercury  in  large  doses 
in  the  yellow-fever;  puffing  himself  off,  writing  letters  and  an 
swering  them  himself,  stiling  him  the  Samson  in  Medicine; 
charging  him  with  murdering  his  patients  and  slaying  his  thou 
sands  and  tens  of  thousands." 

In  his  remarks  to  the  jury  it  is  very  evident  that  the  sympa 
thies  of  the  Judge  were  with  the  plaintiff:  "The  counts  laid  in 


14  A  Report  of  an  action  for  a  Libel  brought  by  Dr.  Benjamin  Rush 
against  William  Cobbett,  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania,  Decem 
ber  term,  1799,  for  certain  defamatory  publications  in  a  newspaper  en 
titled  Porcupine's  Gazette,  Philadelphia,  1800. 


18  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

the  declaration,"  he  says,  "are  full  proved  by  the  publications 
which  are  certainly  libellous.  In  what  manner  do  the  defend 
ant's  counsel  repel  these  proofs?  Not  by  justifying  the  truth 
of  the  matters  charged  against  Dr.  Rush,  which  on  the  contrary 
they  have  repeatedly  acknowledged  to  be  false,  but  by  analyzing 
the  several  allegations  in  the  newspapers  and  from  thence  draw 
ing  a  conclusion  that  no  intentional  personal  malice  appears, 
which  they  say  is  the  essence  of  the  offence.  If  the  defendant 
has  done  that  to  your  satisfaction  you  will  acquit  him ;  but  as 
this  is  chiefly  founded  on  the  allegation  that  the  attack  was 
meant  to  be  made  on  Dr.  Rush's  System  and  not  upon  the  man, 
it  unfortunately  appears  that  not  the  least  attempt  is  made  to 
combat  the  Doctor's  arguments  with  regard  to  the  System  itself, 
but  the  attack  is  made  merely  by  gross  scurrilous  abuse  of  the 
Doctor  himself :  added  to  this,  one  of  the  witnesses  proves  a 
declaration  made  by  the  defendant,  that  if  Dr.  Rush  had  not 
been  the  Man  he  should  never  have  meddled  with  the  System. 
"Another  ground  of  defence  is  of  a  more  serious  nature,  as 
it  leads  to  an  important  question  on  our  constitution — it  is  said 
that  the  subject  of  dispute  between  the  plaintiff  and  defendant 
was  a  matter  of  public  concern,  as  it  related  to  the  health  and 
lives  of  our  fellow-citizens  and  that  by  the  words  of  our  con 
stitution,  every  man  has  a  right  to  discuss  such  subjects  in 
print.  The  liberty  of  the  press,  gentlemen,  is  a  valuable  right 
in  every  free  country,  and  ought  never  to  be  unduly  restrained, 
but  when  it  is  perverted  to  the  purposes  of  private  slander,  it 
then  becomes  a  most  destructive  engine  in  the  hands  of  un 
principled  men.  .  . 

"Every  one  must  know  that  offences  of  this  kind  have  for 
some  time  past  too  much  abounded  in  our  city;  it  seems  high 
time  to  restrain  them — that  task  is  with  you,  gentlemen.  To 
suppress  so  great  an  evil,  it  will  not  only  be  proper  to  give  com 
pensatory,  but  exemplary  damages;  thus  stopping  the  growing 
progress  of  this  daring  crime — at  the  same  time,  the  damages 
should  not  be  so  enormous  as  absolutely  to  ruin  the  offender." 

The   declaration   of   the   plaintiff   contained   certain   extracts 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  19 

from  Cobbett's  paper,  Porcupine's  Gazette,  which  were  consid 
ered  libellous  and  were  the  basis  of  the  accusations.  One  article 
was  entitled  "Medical  Puffing"  :15 

"  'The  times  are  ominous  indeed, 
When  quack  to  quack  cries  purge  and  bleed.' 

"Those  who  are  in  the  habit  of  looking  over  the  Gazettes 
which  come  in  from  the  different  parts  of  the  country,  must  have 
observed,  and  with  no  small  degree  of  indignation,  the  arts  that 
our  remorseless  Bleeder  is  making  use  of  to  puff  off  his  preposter 
ous  practice.  He  has,  unfortunately,  his  partisans  in  almost  every 
quarter  of  the  country.  To  these  he  writes  letters,  and  in  re 
turn  gets  letters  from  them ;  he  extols  their  practice  and  they 
extol  his;  and  there  is  scarcely  a  page  of  any  newspaper  that 
I  see  which  has  the  good  fortune  to  escape  the  poison  of  their 
prescriptions — Blood,  blood !  still  they  cry  more  blood ! 
Dr.  Rush  in  that  emphatic  style  which  is  peculiar  to  himself 
calls  Mercury  'the  Samson  of  medicine.'  In  his  hands  and  in 
those  of  his  partisans  it  may  indeed  be  justly  compared  to  Sam 
son  ;  for,  I  verily  believe  they  have  slain  more  Americans  with 
it  than  ever  Samson  slew  of  the  Philistines.  The  Israelite 
slew  his  thousands,  but  the  Rushites  their  tens  of  thousands." 

Another  article  appeared  in  the  same  paper  a  week  later 
and  was  entitled  "'Another  Puff."16  "In  Brown's  paper17  of 
last  evening  appeared  another  of  our  potent  Quack's  barefaced 
puffs.  It  was  'a  letter  from  Dr.  Rush  to  a  correspondent  in 
Newberry  Port,'  giving  his  own  account  of  the  yellow  fever 
and  concluding  with  a  dragged-in  compliment  to  a  Mr.  Coates. 
.  .  .  .  All  this  bustle  of  letters  and  address  and  prescrip 
tions,  in  the  name  of  Dr.  Rush,  is  intended  to  make  the  duped 
world  believe  that  he  is  the  Oracle  at  Philadelphia  and  that  all 
the  other  physicians  are  mere  glister-pipe  Dicks  under  him — It 
is  a  cheap  mode  of  acquiring  fame,  which  he  learned  from  the 
crafty  old  hypocrite  Franklin." 


"September   19,   1797. 
18  September  26,  1917. 

17  The  Philadelphia  Gazette  and  Universal  Daily  Advertiser.     See  be 
low  p.  32. 


20  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

Still  another  piece  of  evidence  produced  by  the  plaintiff's 
counsel  was  a  letter  inserted  in  Cobbett's  paper  for  October  6, 
1797.  It  told  of  a  cure  for  the  yellow  fever  made  by  a  soldier's 
accidental  immersion  in  tar.  The  editor  comments  as  follows : 
"This  seems  an  odd  kind  of  a  remedy,  but  I  would  rather  Tar, 
with  the  addition  of  Feathers  than  venture  my  life  against  the 
lancet  of  Dr.  Rush." 

The  jury,  after  a  deliberation  of  two  hours,  brought  in  a 
verdict  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff. 

j.     The  Republican  Press 

During  the  first  session  of  Congress  held  in  Philadelphia 
(December  6,  1790,  to  March  3,  1791),  there  were  bitter  dis 
putes  over  the  establishment  of  the  national  bank  and  the  impo 
sition  of  the  excise.  Although  the  opponents  of  these  measures 
were  able  to  exert  some  influence  through  the  columns  of  Bache's 
General  Advertiser,  they  soon  decided  that  it  was  desired  to  es 
tablish  a  party  organ  to  counteract  the  power  which  Hamilton 
was  exerting  through  Fenno's  Gazette  of  the  United  States.  The 
National  Gazette,  a  semi-weekly,  was  therefore  founded,  October 
31,  1791,  and  placed  under  the  editorial  control  of  Philip  Fren- 
eau.  His  paper  was  strongly  anti-Federal  in  tone  and  especially 
severe  in  its  denunciation  of  Hamilton's  political  and  financial 
theories.  Its  publication  was  suspended  in  the  summer  of  1793 
because  of  the  yellow  fever  epidemic  and  was  never  resumed. 

Philip  Freneau18  was  born  in  New  York,  January  13,  1752, 
of  Huguenot  parentage.  Upon  the  death  of  his  father,  his 
mother  and  her  four  children  removed  to  the  Freneau  estate  at 
Mt.  Pleasant,  New  Jersey.  Philip  entered  the  College  of  New 
Jersey  (Princeton),  in  1767.  Students  and  faculty  were  active 
in  their  denunciations  of  the  aggressions  of  England  and  this  en 
vironment  largely  influenced  his  future  career.  It  was  here  that 
he  first  exhibited  that  genius  for  verse  which  was  to  make  him 


18  S.  E.   Forman,   The  Political  Activities  of  Philip  Freneau.      (Johns 
Hopkins  University  Studies,  vol.  XX,   Baltimore,   1902),  passim. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  21 

famous.  He  graduated  in  the  well-known  class  of  1771,  the 
class  of  James  Madison  and  Hugh  Breckenridge. 

Upon  leaving  college,  Freneau  came  to  Philadelphia  and  read 
law  for  several  months.  After  that  he  tried  teaching,  but  he  dis 
liked  the  work  and  was  a  failure.  In  1775,  he  was  back  in  New 
York  writing  poems  in  criticism  of  Great  Britain.  The  year  1775 
was  an  especially  important  one  for  arousing  the  minds  of  the 
people  and  preparing  them  for  the  break  with  the  mother  country 
which  Freneau  thought  was  the  only  way  out  of  the  difficulty. 
His  work  won  for  him  the  title  of  the  "Poet  of  the  Revolution." 
"The  British  Prison  Ship,"  which  he  published  in  1781  relates 
his  own  experiences  on  a  British  vessel,  the  Scorpion,  where  he 
was  kept  a  prisoner  for  two  months  after  having  been  taken 
captive  from  his  little  privateering  vessel,  the  Aurora.  Nothing 
he  wrote  had  more  influence  on  the  American  cause,  as  he  de 
picted  most  forcefully  the  cruelty  and  inhumanity  of  the  English 
towards  their  prisoners. 

After  the  Revolution  Freneau  took  to  the  sea  and  became 
captain  of  a  trading  vessel  sailing  between  the  United  States  and 
the  West  Indies.  In  April  of  1789,  he  returned  to  New  York 
and  wrote  for  the  Daily  Advertiser.  He  was  friendly  with  all 
the  leading  Republicans  and  was  soon  recognized  in  political 
circles  as  one  of  their  strongest  writers. 

In  1790,  Thomas  Jefferson  returned  to  America  from  Paris 
and  became  Secretary  of  State.  When  the  government  was  moved 
to  Philadelphia  in  1791,  there  was  a  vacancy  in  Jefferson's  office 
in  the  position  of  French  translator.  It  was  largely  through  the 
instrumentality  of  James  Madison  and  Henry  Lee  that  this  po 
sition  was  offered  to  Freneau.19  The  salary  was  $250,  only  one- 
half  the  pay  of  a  regular  clerk,  and  it  was  understood  that  he  was 
allowed  to  spend  the  rest  of  the  time  editing  a  newspaper.  Fren 
eau  had  intended  to  leave  New  York  and  start  a  newspaper  in 
New  Jersey.  Jefferson,  Madison  and  other  Republicans,  how 
ever,  were  particularly  desirous  that  he  should  establish  his  pa- 


19  Madison    says    that    Lee    made    the    original    suggestion.      Madison's 
Writings,  vol.  VI,  p.  117,  note. 


22  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

per  in  Philadelphia  as  an  offset  to  Hamilton's  organ,  the  Ga 
zette  of  the  United  States,  edited  by  John  Fenno.  Madison  wrote 
to  Jefferson  from  New  York,  May  1,  1791,  as  follows:  'The 
more  I  learn  of  his  character,  talents  and  principles,  the  more  I 
should  regret  his  burying  himself  in  the  obscurity  he  had  chosen 
in  New  Jersey.  It  is  certain  that  there  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 
whole  catalogue  of  American  printers  a  single  name  that  can 
approach  towards  a  rivalship."20 

Freneau  was  delayed  for  sometime  in  New  Jersey,  and  Jeffer 
son  concluded  that  he  had  given  up  his  plan  of  coming  to  Phila 
delphia.  Madison  wrote  to  Jefferson  from  New  York,  July  10, 
1791,  "that  Freneau  is  now  here  and  has  abandoned  his  Phila 
delphia  project.  From  what  cause  I  am  wholly  unable  to  deter 
mine;  unless  those  who  know  his  talents  and  hate  his  political 
principles  should  have  practised  some  artifice  for  the  purpose."21 

Finally,  late  in  July,  Freneau  definitely  decided  to  accept  and 
on  August  16,  1791,  was  given  the  position  in  Jefferson's  office. 
The  enemies  of  Freneau  and  Jefferson  made  much  of  his  accept 
ing  this  appointment  and  tried  to  represent  the  whole  proceeding 
as  dishonorable.  The  chief  aim  of  the  National  Gazette  was  to 
attack  Hamilton  and  make  his  measures  as  unpopular  as  possible. 
Freneau  was  a  master  of  irony  and  Fenno  was  no  match  for  him. 
Hamilton,  therefore,  undertook  to  fight  his  own  cause.  He  at 
tacked  Freneau  in  the  Gazette  of  the  United  States,  and  made 
much  of  the  fact  that  while  he  was  receiving  a  salary  from  the 
government  as  a  translator,  he  was  denouncing  the  measures  of 
the  government  in  his  newspaper.22  A  great  controversy  resulted 
from  these  charges.  Hamilton  said  that  Jefferson  dictated  the 
policies  of  Freneau's  paper,  and  it  was  this  episode  which  caused 
the  outbreak  of  the  quarrel  between  Hamilton  and  Jefferson.23 
Jefferson,  however,  maintained  a  dignified  silence  at  this  time 


90  Madison's    Writings,  vol.   VI,   pp.   46-47. 

21  Madison's  Writings,  vol.  VI,  p.  55,  n. 

22  Similar    charges    might    have    been    brought    against    Hamilton    who 
had  employed  Fenno  as  exclusive  printer  for  the  government  at  a  salary 
of  $2,500  a  year. 

28  Hamilton's  Works, 


r,  vol.  TL,  p.  28. 

it 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  23 

and  left  Hamilton  and  Freneau  to  fight  it  out  alone.  He  swore 
before  the  President,  however,  that  he  had  never  attempted  in 
any  way  to  influence  the  policy  of  the  paper.  Freneau  testified 
before  the  mayor  of  Philadelphia  that  he  had  always  been  in 
dependent  and  influenced  by  no  one. 

Madison,  in  a  letter  to  Edmund  Randolph,  dated  September 
13,  1792,  discusses  the  charge  made  by  Fenno  that  the  establish 
ment  of  the  National  Gazette  was  brought  about  to  sap  the  con 
stitution,  and  that  it  was  improper  for  one  person  to  be  a  trans 
lating  clerk  in  a  public  office  and  at  the  same  time  an  editor  of  a 
Gazette.  "I  advised  the  change  [Philadelphia  rather  than  New 
Jersey]"  writes  Madison,  "because  I  thought  his  [Freneau's] 
interest  would  be  advanced  by  it  and  because  as  a  friend,  I  was 
desirous  that  his  interest  should  be  advanced.  That  was  my 
primary  and  governing  motive.  That,  as  a  consequential  one,  I 
entertained  hopes  that  a  free  paper  meant  for  general  circulation, 
and  edited  by  a  man  of  genius  of  republican  principles,  and  a 
friend  to  the  constitution,  would  be  some  antidote  to  the  doctrines 
and  discourses  circulated  in  favor  of  Monarchy  and  Aristocracy 
and  would  be  an  acceptable  vehicle  of  public  information  in  many 
places  not  sufficiently  supplied  with  it,  this  also  is  a  certain 
truth."24 

The  plague  visited  Philadelphia  in  the  summer  of  1793,  and 
the  National  Gazette  was  discontinued.  About  this  time  Jeffer 
son  resigned,  and  Freneau  was  obliged  to  give  up  his  clerkship. 
After  leaving  Philadelphia,  Freneau  published  the  Jersey  Chron 
icle  at  his  own  home  at  Mt.  Pleasant,  New  Jersey.  This  was  an 
Anti-Federal  paper  which  soon  perished.  The  Time-Piece,  an 
other  newspaper  venture  of  Freneau  in  New  York,  met  with  a 
similar  fate.  While  Freneau  spent  most  of  his  remaining  years 
at  Mt.  Pleasant,  he  continued  his  literary  activity.  His  political 
works  appeared  in  Bache's  Aurora,  the  political  successor  of  the 
National  Gazette.  Freneau  never  made  a  living  out  of  his  writ 
ings.  Finally,  to  provide  for  his  family,  he  became  captain  of  a 


34  Madison's   Writings,  vol.  VI,  p.  117  note. 


24  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

merchantman  and  thus  spent  the  years  from  1799  until  1807, 
when  he  abandoned  the  sea  never  to  return  to  it  again.  His 
literary  activity  during  the  war  of  1812  won  for  him  the  title  of 
the  "Poet  of  the  War  of  1812."  His  career  as  a  writer  ended 
at  the  close  of  the  war,  and  he  spent  the  last  years  of  his  life  in 
retirement  in  his  New  Jersey  home.  His  death  occurred  in  De 
cember,  1832. 

The  National  Gazette  overshadowed  the  other  Republican 
newspapers  of  the  time,  but  when  it  ceased  publication  in  1793, 
Bache's  General  Advertiser,  known  later  as  the  Aurora  General 
Advertiser,  became  the  chief  party  organ. 

Benjamin  Franklin  Bache,  grandson  of  Benjamin  Franklin, 
was  born  in  Philadelphia,  August  12,  1769.  His  father,  Richard 
Bache,  a  native  of  Yorkshire,  England,  came  to  America  while  a 
young  man  and  entered  mercantile  business.  He  married  Sarah, 
the  only  daughter  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  in  1767.  Benjamin  F. 
Bache  accompanied  his  grandfather  to  Paris,  when  the  latter  rep 
resented  the  Continental  Congress  at  the  French  court,  and  re 
ceived  his  education  in  France  and  at  Geneva.  While  in  Paris 
he  learned  the  printing  trade  at  the  publishing  house  of  Didot. 
He  returned  to  America  with  his  grandfather  in  1785  and  com 
pleted  his  education  in  the  College  of  Philadelphia.  Bache 
founded  the  General  Advertiser,  the  first  number  of  which  ap 
peared  October  1,  1790.  On  November  8,  1794,  its  title  was 
changed  to  the  Aurora  General  Advertiser.  Bache  remained  the 
editor  until  his  death,  as  the  result  of  yellow  fever,  on  September 
10,  1798.  William  Duane  then  published  it  for  two  years  as  the 
agent  of  Mrs.  Bache.  In  1800  Duane  married  Mrs.  Bache  and 
became  the  sole  editor. 

The  Aurora,  as  it  was  popularly  called,  advocated  the  cause 
of  the  French  Republic  and  tried  to  arouse  American  sympathy 
in  its  favor.  President  Washington  looked  with  disapproval 
upon  many  of  the  measures  of  the  French  revolutionists,  and 
hence  the  Aurora  was  led  into  hostility  to  the  Federal  govern 
ment  and  won  over  to  the  Anti-Federal  party.  It  was  considered 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  25 

as  the  special  organ  of  the  Democratic  Republicans  and  was  called 
"The  Bible  of  the  Democracy."25 

So  strong  a  stand  did  the  Aurora  take  against  the  measures  of 
Washington's  administration,  that  its  violence  was  often  directed 
against  the  President  himself.  The  following  article,  published 
the  day  after  President  Adams's  inauguration  and  relating  to 
Washington's  departure  for  Mt.  Vernon,  illustrates  this  point : 
"  'Lord  now  lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart  in  peace  for  mine 
eyes  have  seen  thy  salvation'  was  the  pious  ejaculation  of  a  man 
who  beheld  a  flood  of  happiness  rushing  in  upon  mankind.  If 
ever  there  was  a  time  which  would  license  the  reiteration  of  this 
exclamation  that  time  is  now  arrived ;  for  the  man  who  is  the 
source  of  all  the  misfortunes  of  our  country  is  this  day  reduced 
to  a  level  with  his  fellow  citizens  and  is  no  longer  possessed  of 
power  to  multiply  evils  upon  the  United  States.  If  ever  there 
was  a  period  of  rejoicing  this  is  the  moment.  Every  heart  in 
unison  with  the  freedom  and  happiness  of  the  people  ought  to 
beat  high  with  exultation  that  the  name  of  Washington  from  this 
day  ceased  to  give  a  currency  to  political  iniquity  and  to  legalized 
corruption.  A  new  era  is  now  opening  upon  us,  an  era  which 
promises  much  to  the  people ;  for  public  measures  must  now 
stand  upon  their  own  merits  and  nefarious  projects  can  no  longer 
be  supported  by  a  name.  It  is  a  subject  of  the  greatest  astonish 
ment  that  a  single  individual  should  have  carried  his  designs 
against  the  public  liberty  so  far  as  to  have  put  in  jeopardy  its 
very  existence.  Such,  however,  are  the  facts;  and  with  these 
staring  us  in  the  face,  this  day  ought  to  be  a  jubilee  in  the  United 
States."26 

William  Duane  was  born  in  New  York,  near  Lake  Champlain, 
May  17,  1760.  His  father  and  mother,  both  natives  of  Ireland, 
were  well  educated  and  of  good  family  connections.  From  his 
mother,  a  very  firm  and  stubborn  woman,  he  inherited  the  one 
trait  of  absolute  adherence  to  principle  and  loyalty  to  party 


23  A.  C.  Clark,  William  Duane,  p.  15. 
26  March  5,  17/7. 


26  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

whether  right  or  wrong,  a  characteristic  which  governed  him 
throughout  his  entire  life.  His  father,  a  land-surveyor,  died  in 
1765,  it  is  said,  in  an  attack  by  the  Indians. 

Mrs.  Duane  with  her  son,  then  five  years  old,  came  to  Phila 
delphia,  and  after  remaining  there  a  short  time  moved  to  Bal 
timore.  In  1774  William  and  his  mother  crossed  to  Ireland  and 
settled  at  Clonmel.  Here  he  was  well  educated,  but  as  his  mother 
was  in  very  comfortable  circumstances  no  thought  was  given  to 
providing  him  with  a  profession.27  When  not  quite  nineteen 
years  of  age,  Duane  fell  in  love  with  and  married  Catharine,  the 
seventeenth  child  of  William  Corcoran.  The  marriage  displeased 
his  mother,  and  he  was  disinherited.  Mrs.  Duane's  objections 
were  entirely  religious,  as  she  was  a  devout  Roman  Catholic  and 
the  Corcorans  were  of  the  Established  Church.28  The  question 
of  making  a  living  for  himself  and  his  wife  presented  itself  to 
William.  Having  no  profession  or  business  training,  he  learned 
the  printing  trade.  After  working  at  this  for  three  or  four  years 
in  Clonmel,  he  took  his  wife  and  son  to  London. 

In  1787  he  went  out  to  Calcutta  and  established  a  newspaper 
called  The  World.  The  venture  was  successful,  and  Duane  was 
about  to  send  for  his  family  when  an  article  in  his  paper  provoked 
the  wrath  of  the  officials  of  the  East  India  Company.  He  was 
imprisoned,  his  property  was  confiscated,  and  he  was  ultimately 
sent  back  to  England.  Although  he  petitioned  Parliament  for 
redress,  he  soon  found  that  the  East  India  Company  was  too 
rich  and  powerful  to  be  successfully  attacked.  For  the  next 
few  years  he  was  parliamentary  reporter  for  the  General  Adver 
tiser,  a  paper  that  was  later  merged  with  the  London  Times.29 

Duane  and  his  family  sailed  from  London,  May  16,  1796,  and 
arrived  in  New  York  on  the  4th  of  July.  Shortly  afterward,  he 
came  to  Philadelphia  and  assisted  Benjamin  F.  Bache  in  the  pub 
lication  of  the  Aurora.  On  July  13,  1798  Mrs.  Duane  died  of  the 
yellow  fever,  and  on  September  10,  Bache  succumbed  to  the  same 


27  Clark,  William  Duane,  p.  8. 
"Ibid.,  p.  9. 
29  Ibid.,  p.  13. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  27 

disease.  The  Aurora  was  continued  for  a  while  under  the  joint 
editorship  of  Duane  and  Mrs.  Bache  until,  on  June  28,  1800, 
they  were  married  and  Duane  became  sole  editor.30 

Duane  was  an  even  more  'bitter  partisan  than  Bache.     His 
official  biographer  tells  us  that  he  was  always  ready  for  a  quar 
rel  and  that  it  was  of  no  consequence  to  him  whether  the  issue 
was  "national,  state,  or  municipal,  whether  political,  religious,  or 
anything  else  in  the  dictionary's  descriptives."31     He  was  almost 
constantly  involved  in  libel  suits.     There  can,  however,  be  no 
doubt  about  the  strength  of  his  political  influence.    His  paper  was*! 
one  of  the  chief   factors  in  discrediting  the  administration   of  / 
Adams  and  bringing  about  the   election  of   Jefferson   in   1800.J 
Adams's  own  opinion  of  Duane  is  well  expressed  in  the  follow 
ing  extract  from  a  letter  written  to  Timothy  Pickering,  August 
1,  1799:     "Is  there  anything  evil  in  the  regions  of  actuality  or 
possibility  that  the  Aurora  has  not  suggested  of  me?    The  match 
less  effrontery  of  this  Duane  merits  the  execution  of  the  Alien 
Law.    I  am  very  willing  to  try  its  strength  upon  him."32 

Washington  of  course  escaped  direct  attack  as  he  had  retired 
from  public  life  before  Duane's  American  career  began.  He  was, 
however,  very  much  disturbed  by  the  violent  attacks  made  upon 
the  men  and  measures  of  the  Federalist  party.  In  a  letter  to 
James  McHenry  of  August  11,  1799,  he  speaks  of  Duane  in 
these  words :  "There  can  be  no  medium  between  the  reward  and 
the  punishment  of  such  an  Editor  who  shall  publish  such  things 
as  Duane  has  been  doing  for  sometime  past.  On  what  ground 
then  does  he  pretend  to  stand  in  his  exhibition  of  the  charges  or 
the  insinuations  which  he  has  handed  to  the  Public  ?  Can  hardi 
hood  itself  be  so  great  as  to  stigmatize  characters  in  the  Public 
Gazettes  for  the  most  heinous  offences  and  when  prosecuted 
pledge  itself  to  support  the  allegation,  unless  there  was  some 
thing  to  build  on?  It  will  have  an  unhappy  effect  on  the  public 
mind  if  it  be  not  so."33 


30  Ibid.,  15. 
"Ibid.,  16. 

32  Adams's  Works,  vol.  IX,  p.  5. 

33  Washington's   Writings,  vol.   IV,  pp.   194-195. 


28  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

In  the  diary  of  John  Quincy  Adams  (1795-1848),  the  follow 
ing  entry  is  written  of  Duane :  "As  merely  the  editor  of  a  news 
paper,  character  is  not  necessary  to  support  opposition.  To  prove 
venal  and  profligate  would  only  show  him  fit  for  the  trade  which 
he  pursues  of  disseminating  slander.  He  has  talents,  long  and 
uninterrupted  experience  in  public  affairs,  much  knowledge 
crammed  without  order  or  method  into  his  head  and  indefatigible, 
unremitting  industry.  His  real  faculty  and  power  as  a  slanderer 
consists  in  mixing  truth  with  falsehood  in  such  proportions  that 
with  the  ignorant,  the  malicious  and  the  interested,  the  compound 
is  so  like  the  truth  'twill  serve  the  turn  as  well.  As  a  partisan, 
he  can  be  useful  only  to  those  whose  cause  depends  upon  the 
propagation  of  falsehood.  For  support  of  truth  or  correct  prin 
ciple  he  is  impotent." 

Jefferson,  writing  from  Monticello  to  Mr.  Wirt,  speaks  of 
the  services  rendered  his  party  by  the  Aurora  as  follows :  "The 
paper  has  unquestionably  rendered  incalculable  services  to  repub 
licanism  through  all  its  struggles  with  the  federalists  and  has 
been  the  rallying  point  for  the  orthodoxy  of  the  whole  Union. 
It  was  our  comfort  in  the  gloomiest  days  and  is  still  performing 
the  office  of  a  watchful  sentinel.  We  should  be  ungrateful  to 
desert  him  and  unfaithful  to  our  own  interests  to  lose  him."34 

Mr.  Madison,  writing  in  1811,  characterizes  him  as  follows: 
"I  have  always  regarded  Duane  and  still  regard  him  as  a  sin 
cere  friend  of  liberty  and  as  ready  to  make  every  sacrifice  to  its 
cause  but  that  of  his  passions.  Of  these  he  appears  to  be  com 
pletely  a  slave."35 

The  Aurora  gradually  lost  its  leadership  as  the  great  organ  of 
Republicanism  and  declined  in  political  importance.  Duane  laid 
down  the  editorial  pen  in  1822.  He  died  November  24,  1835,  at 
the  age  of  seventy-six,  and  was  buried  in  North  Laurel  Hill 
Cemetery,  Philadelphia. 

The  Pennsylvania  Packet  and  Daily  Advertiser  was  the  first 
daily  paper  published  in  the  United  States.  It  was  first  issued 

34  March  30,    1811.     Jefferson's    Writings,  vol.   IX,   p.  316-317. 
"Madison's  Writings,  vol.  VIII,  p.  151. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  29 

from  the  press  October  28,  1771,  and  its  editor  was  John  Dun- 
lap.  It  was  printed  on  Market  street  on  Monday  of  each  week.36 
From  September  16,  1777,  to  June  30,  1778,  while  the  British 
were  in  possession  of  Philadelphia,  it  was  published  at  Lan 
caster,  Pennsylvania.  Until  1793,  Dunlap  was  the  principal  edi 
tor,  after  that  date  David  Claypoole  was  associated  with  him, 
and  in  1796  the  editorship  was  handed  over  to  Claypoole.  On 
October  1,  1800,  Claypoole  sold  out  to  Zachariah  Poulson,  who 
continued  the  paper  as  Paulson's  Daily  Advertiser  until,  in  De 
cember,  1839,  it  was  united  with  the  Philadelphia  North  Ameri 
can.  The  Packet  was  strongly  Republican  in  its  politics,  al 
though  its  influence  was  not  as  great  as  Freneau's  Gazette  or 
Bache's  Aurora. 

John  Dunlap  was  born  in  the  north  of  Ireland  in  1747.  Early 
in  life  he  moved  to  America  and  settled  in  Philadelphia,  where  he 
became  associated  in  the  printing  trade  with  his  uncle,  William 
Dunlap.  He  purchased  his  uncle's  interest  in  the  business  in 
1768,  founded  the  Packet  in  1771,  and  was  official  printer  of  the 
Journals  of  Congress  from  1778  to  1783.  He  retired  from  busi 
ness  in  1795  and  died  in  Philadelphia,  November  27,  1812.37 

David  Chambers  Claypoole  was  born  in  Philadelphia  June 
14,  1757.  His  ancestry  may  be  traced  back  to  an  old  English 
family  of  Claypooles  situated  in  Norborough,  Northamptonshire. 
The  history  of  the  Claypoole  family  in  America  begins  with 
James  Claypoole  who  immigrated  to  this  country  in  1683.  David 
C.  Claypoole  served  during  the  American  Revolution  as  an  in 
fantry  officer,  and  he  also  took  part  in  the  expedition  sent  in 
1794  to  put  down  the  Whiskey  Rebellion.  It  was  in  December 
of  1793  that  he  first  became  associated  with  John  Dunlap  in  the 
publication  of  the  American  Daily  Advertiser,  successor  to  the 
Packet,  and  in  January,  1796,  he  became  the  sole  editor.  Wash 
ington's  Farewell  Address  first  appeared  in  Claypoole's  paper, 
and  the  original  manuscript  was  presented  to  him  by  the  Presi- 


"It  did  not  become  a  daily  until  September  21,   1784. 
"Isaiah   Thomas,  History   of  Printing  in  America,  Albany,   1874,  vol. 
I,  pp.  252-253,  258-259. 


30  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

dent.  On  October  1,  1800,  Claypoole  sold  his  paper  to  Zachariah 
Poulson  for  $10,000.  He  died  March  9,  1849,  and  was  buried  in 
St.  Stephen's  Church,  Philadelphia.38 

Zachariah  Poulson,  Jr.,  was  born  in  Philadelphia,  September 
5,  1761.  He  was  the  son  of  Zachariah  Poulson,  a  native  of 
Denmark,  who  came  to  Philadelphia  in  1749  and  went  into  busi 
ness  as  a  book-binder  and  book-seller.  Zachariah,  Jr.,  served  an 
apprenticeship  with  Joseph  Crinkshank,  an  eminent  printer  of 
Philadelphia,  and  for  many  years  was  printer  for  the  State  Sen 
ate.  On  October  1,  1800,  he  purchased  Claypoole's  American 
Daily  Advertiser.  Poulson  died  July  31,  1844.39 

The  Independent  Gazetteer  or  Chronicle  of  Freedom  was 
founded  in  April,  1782,  as  a  weekly.  It  became  a  daily  in  Oc 
tober,  1786.  Its  editor  was  Eleazer  Oswald.  Upon  his  death, 
1795,  the  paper  was  taken  over  by  Joseph  Gales,  and  in  Sep 
tember,  1796,  it  became  known  as  Gale's  Independent  Gazetteer, 
published  semi-weekly.  The  Gazetteer  was  pro-French  in  its 
sympathies  and  opposed  to  the  measures  of  the  Federal  govern 
ment. 

Ejleazer  Oswald  was  born  in  England  in  1755,  and  moved  to 
America  in  1770.  He  entered  the  American  army  at  the  be 
ginning  of  the  Revolution  and  served  with  distinction  as  a  col 
onel.  In  1778,  he  resigned  his  commission  and  came  to  Phila 
delphia,  and  in  April,  1782,  began  the  publication  of  the  Inde 
pendent  Gazetteer  or  Chronicle  of  Freedom.  He  was  a  very 
strong  opponent  of  Hamilton,  and  on  one  occasion  challenged  him 
to  a  duel,  but  mutual  friends  managed  to  patch  up  the  affair. 
In  1792,  he  went  to  France  and  joined  the  Republican  army  as  a 
colonel  of  artillery.  He  was  sent  to  Ireland  by  the  French  gov 
ernment  on  a  secret  errand  to  investigate  conditions  relative  to  a 
proposed  French  invasion.  Later  he  returned  to  the  United 
States  and  died  soon  after  of  yellow  fever,  in  New  York,  Sep 
tember  30,  1795.40 


38  Claypoole  Genealogy,  pp.  82-87. 

38  Thomas,  History  of  Printing  in  America,  vol.  II,  pp.  140-141. 

40  Appleton,  Cyclopaedia  of  American  Biography,  vol.  IV,  p.  603.  J. 
B.  McMaster  and  F.  D.  Stone,  Pennsylvania  and  the  Federal  Constitution, 
Philadelphia,  1888,  p.  7. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  31 

Joseph  Gales  was  one  of  the  small  group  of  English  radicals 
who  were  compelled  to  go  into  exile  because  of  their  sympathies 
with  the  French  Revolution.  He  was  born  near  Sheffield  in  1760. 
He  became  a  printer  and  bookseller  in  that  city  and  also  published 
the  Register.  His  liberal  principles,  as  expressed  in  his  paper, 
aroused  the  hostility  of  the  British  government,  and  fearing  ar 
rest  he  sold  his  paper  and  came  to  Philadelphia  in  the  spring  of 
1793.  He  obtained  employment  as  a  printer  on  the  American 
Daily  Advertiser,  published  by  David  C.  Claypoole.  In  1795, 
he  became  owner  of  the  Independent  Gazetteer  and  conducted  it 
until  1799.  He  then  sold  out  to  Samuel  Harrison  Smith,  moved 
to  North  Carolina  and  established  the  Raleigh  Register.  When 
quite  old  he  relinquished  this  paper  to  one  of  his  sons  and  went 
to  Washington,  where  he  became  much  interested  in  African 
colonization.  He  was  an  active  member  of  the  American  Col 
onization  Society  almost  to  his  death.  He  died  in  Raleigh, 
August  24,  1841. 

4.     Miscellaneous 

The  Pennsylvania  Gazette  was  first  issued  December  24,  1728, 
by  Samuel  Keimer.  Benjamin  Franklin  was  employed  by 
Keimer  for  a  short  time,  but  through  financial  difficulties,  Keimer 
was  forced  to  dispose  of  the  paper,  and  it  was  sold  to  Franklin 
and  Hugh  Meredith.  This  connection  was  broken  in  1732,  and 
Franklin  became  sole  editor.  Early  in  1748  he  took  as  his  part 
ner,  a  Scotchman,  David  Hall,  to  whom  he  sold  his  interests  in 
1765.  In  1766,  William  Sellers  became  associated  with  Hall 
and  their  partnership  lasted  until  1805.  During  the  occupation 
of  Philadelphia  by  the  British  and  for  some  months  afterwards 
the  publication  was  suspended,  but  was  resumed  January  5,  1779, 
and  conducted  regularly  after  that.  This  paper  later  became  the 
Saturday  Evening  Post,  the  first  issue  of  which  was  published 
August  4,  1821. 41 

The  first  number  of  the  Pennsylvania  Journal  and  Weekly  Ad- 


"Scharff  and   Westcott,  History   of  Philadelphia,   vol.   Ill,   pp.    1962- 


32  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

vertiser  appeared  December  2,  1742.  The  editor  was  William 
Bradford,  the  nephew  of  Andrew  Bradford,  who  published  the 
American  Weekly  Mercury,  the  first  newspaper  printed  in  Phila 
delphia.  In  1766,  his  son,  Thomas,  became  his  partner.  During 
the  British  occupation  of  Philadelphia,  the  publication  of  the 
paper  was  suspended,  but  it  was  resumed  again  in  December 
of  1778.  The  father  and  son  continued  to  publish  the  paper 
until  the  former  died,  September  25,  1791.  The  title  was  changed 
in  1797  to  the  True  American,  and  the  paper  continued  to  be 
edited  'by  Thomas  Bradford.  The  subscription  price  was  six 
dollars  per  annum.42 

William  Bradford  was  born  in  New  York  in  1719.  He  was 
adopted  and  educated  by  his  uncle,  Andrew  Bradford,  with 
whom  he  learned  the  printing  trade  and  whose  partner  he  be 
came  in  December,  1739.  This  relationship,  however,  lasted  only 
a  year.  In  December,  1742,  he  began  to  publish  the  Pennsylvania 
Journal  and  Weekly  Advertiser,  a  paper  which"  was  devoted  to 
the  American  cause  from  the  beginning  of  the  difficulties 
with  Great  Britain  in  1765.  He  served  with  distinction  in  the 
American  Revolution,  becoming  the  colonel  of  his  regiment.  Af 
ter  the  British  evacuated  Philadelphia,  he  retired  from  the  army, 
broken  in  health  and  fortune.  The  fact  that  he  had  a  share 
in  securing  the  independence  of  his  country  afforded  him  much 
comfort  in  his  later  years,  and  he  frequently  remarked  to  his 
children,  "Though  I  bequeath  you  no  estate,  I  leave  you  in  the 
enjoyment  of  liberty."  He  died  September  25,  1791,  and  was 
buried  in  Philadelphia.43 

His  son  Thomas  was  born  in  Philadelphia  May  4,  1745.  He 
attended  the  College  of  Philadelphia  for  several  years.  In  1762, 
his  father  gave  him  a  place  in  his  printing  office  and  in  1766  re 
ceived  him  as  a  partner  in  the  business.  He  was  an  ardent  pa 
triot  and  served  throughout  the  Revolution.  After  the  war  he 
resumed  the  printing  business  with  his  father.  He  died  in  Phila 
delphia,  May  7,  1838.44 


13  Ibid.,  pp.   1964-1965. 

43  Bradford    Genealogy,    pp.    5-7. 

"Ibid. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  33 

The  first  number  of  the  Federal  Gazette  was  issued  October  1, 
1788,  by  Andrew  Brown.  In  January,  1794,  the  title  was  changed 
to  the  Philadelphia  Gazette  and  Universal  Daily  Advertiser. 
Upon  the  death  of  Brown  in  1797,  his  son,  Andrew  Brown,  took 
charge  of  the  paper  and  Samuel  Relf  was  associated  with  him 
as  partner.  Samuel  Relf  bought  Brown's  interest  in  September, 
1801,  and  continued  to  publish  the  Gazette  until  his  death  in  1823. 

Andrew  Brown  was  a  native  of  Ireland,  born  in  1744.  He 
received  his  education  at  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  and  came  to 
America  in  1773  as  an  officer  in  the  British  army.  He  soon  left 
the  service,  however,  and  settled  in  Massachusetts.  He  fought 
on  the  American  side  during  the  Revolution.  At  the  conclusion  of 
the  war  he  established  a  seminary  for  young  ladies  at  Lancaster, 
Pennsylvania,  but  his  irritable  temper  made  him  unsuitable  for 
this  occupation,  and  he  gave  it  up.  In  October,  1788,  he  bought 
and  published  the  Federal  Gazette  at  Philadelphia.  This  paper 
leaned  toward  the  Federalist  party,  and  it  was  the  first  journal 
to  publish  regular  reports  of  the  debates  in  Congress.  Brown 
continued  to  publish  his  paper  during  the  yellow-fever  epidemic 
of  1793,  one  of  the  few  editors  to  do  this.  His  death  was  caused 
by  injuries  received  while  trying  to  save  his  wife  and  children 
from  a  fire  which  destroyed  his  printing  establishment  on  the 
night  of  January  27,  1797.  He  died  February  4,  1797.  His 
son,  Andrew,  born  in  Ireland  in  1774,  continued  to  publish  the 
paper  until  1802.  His  partner  was  Samuel  Relf,  until,  in  1802, 
Relf  bought  out  his  partner's  interest  and  the  paper  was  pub 
lished  as  Relfs  Gazette.  In  the  troubles  with  England  which  cul 
minated  in  the  War  of  1812,  his  sympathies  were  so  Anglophile 
that  he  became  very  unpopular.  He  went  to  England  and  died 
there,  December  7,  1847.45 

Samuel  Relf  was  born  in  Virginia,  March  22,  1776,  and  died 
there  February  4,  1823.  His  mother  brought  him  to  Philadel 
phia  when  a  child.  He  became  associated  with  Andrew  Brown  as 
editor  of  the  Philadelphia  Gazette  in  1799.  In  1802  he  became 
sole  editor,  and  the  paper  was  changed  to  Relfs  Gazetted 

45  Scharff    and    Westcott,    History    of  Philadelphia,    vol.    Ill,    p.    1977. 

46  Frederic  Hudson,  History  of  Journalism,  New  York,  1873,  p.  78. 


34  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

The  Pennsylvania  Mercury  and  Universal  Advertiser  was  a 
weekly,  established  August  20,  1784.  Its  editor  during  the 
greater  part  of  its  existence,  which  lasted  until  1791,  was  Daniel 
Humphreys. 

Daniel  Humphreys  was  the  son  of  Joshua  Humphreys.  He 
served  his  time  as  an  apprentice  to  William  Bradford.  Begin 
ning  in  1775,  Daniel  was  the  partner  of  Enoch  Story,  but  this 
lasted  only  a  few  months  as  the  printing  house  and  its  materials 
were  destroyed  by  fire.  From  June,  1783,  to  July,  1784,  he  was  a 
partner  of  Eleazer  Oswald  in  the  publication  of  his  Independent 
Gazetteer.  He  had  a  printing  house  in  Philadelphia  until  1811. 
He  died  June  12,  1812.47 

The  New  World  was  a  small  paper  which  appeared  in  Phila 
delphia  in  1795.  Its  editor  was  Samuel  Harrison  Smith,  and  it 
was  issued  at  first  twice  a  day,  morning  and  evening,  but  was 
soon  changed  to  a  daily.48  The  price  was  eight  dollars  a  year, 
and  the  place  of  publication  118  Chestnut  Street.  This  paper 
claimed  to  be  non-partisan.  In  his  foreword  to  the  public  the  edi 
tor  says  that  "political  discussion  will  be  encouraged  and  not  re 
pressed  so  far  as  it  is  connected  with  principles  and  the  general 
good.  But  it  will  always  be  rejected  when  its  object  is  personal 
resentment  or  party  malevolence."  The  paper  was  discontinued 
after  a  few  months.49 

Carey's  Daily  Advertiser  was  published  by  James  Carey  and 
John  Markland  at  91  South  Front  Street.  The  price  was  six 
dollars  a  year.  The  paper  professed  political  impartiality,  and 
the  prospectus  announced  that  "the  Daily  Advertiser  will  be  open 
for  candid  and  liberal  discussion  on  both  sides  of  every  political 
question  which  may  interest  the  public  mind.  It  will  likewise 
contain  such  extracts  from  party  papers  and  pamphlets  on  both 
sides  as  may  serve  to  develop  the  plans  and  conduct  of  each. 
The  design  of  this  is  to  lessen  the  political  zeal.  To  soften  that 


47  Thomas,  History  of  Printing,  vol.  I,  267-268. 

48  October  25,   1796. 

48  Title  page  of  The  New  World,  file  in  the  Ridgeway  Branch  of  the 
Philadelphia  Library  Company. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  35 

asperity  which  a  difference  in  political  opinion  produces  in  the 
heart,  should  be  the  study  of  every  man,  whatever  his  sentiments 
or  whatever  his  situation."50  Carey  came  to  this  country  in 
1796,  having  failed  in  the  publication  of  the  Volunteer's  Journal 
of  Dublin,  a  paper  he  had  had  charge  of  after  his  brother  Mat 
thew  came  to  the  United  States. 

Freeman's  Journal  or  The  North  American  Intelligencer  was 
established  April  25,  1781,  by  Francis  Bailey.  It  appeared  twice 
weekly,  its  price  was  four  pence,  and  it  was  printed  in  Market 
Street.  About  1780  Philip  Freneau  became  connected  with  the 
paper  and  contributed  to  its  columns  for  three  or  four  years.51 
Its  motto  was  "Open  to  all  Parties  but  influenced  by  none,"  but 
as  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  Federalist  in  its  principles.  The  pub 
lication  of  the  paper  was  suspended  in  1792. 

The  only  newspaper  published  in  Philadelphia  in  French  dur 
ing  the  Federalist  period  was  The  American  Star.52  It  was  ed 
ited  by  Tanguy  at  85  Vine  Street.  Each  page  was  divided  into 
two  columns,  one  in  English,  the  other  in  French.  The  paper 
was  given  up  largely  to  French  affairs  and  advertisements. 

Finlay's  American  Naval  and  Commercial  Register  was  pub 
lished  by  Samuel  Finlay  at  49  Chestnut  Street.  The  price  was 
four  dollars  per  annum,  later  increased  to  five,  and  it  appeared 
twice  a  week,  on  Tuesday  and  Friday.  It  was  chiefly  a  mercan 
tile  newspaper.  Two  pages  were  always  allotted  to  "Prices  Cur 
rent  and  Marine  Intelligence,"  and  the  other  two  pages  given 
over  to  advertisements.  Here  information  could  be  obtained  con 
cerning  the  arrival  and  departure  of  vessels  at  Philadelphia  and 
other  ports,  their  cargoes,  owners  and  destinations,  announce 
ments  of  vessels,  land  and  merchandise  for  sale,  prices  of  stock, 
etc.  Some  attention  was  given  to  the  activities  of  Congress  and 
there  were  few  notices  concerning  foreign  affairs.53 


50  Sec  first  issue  of  Carey's  Daily  Advertiser,  file  in  Pennsylvania  His 
torical   Society  Library. 

51  Hudson,  History  of  Journalism,  p.  185. 

52  February  to   May,    1794,    (stray   nos.),    Pennsylvania   Historical    So 
ciety  Library. 

53  File  in  Ridgeway  Branch  of  the   Philadelphia  Library  Company. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  FINANCIAL  SYSTEM 
/.    Nature  of  the  Criticisms 

During  Washington's  first  administration  the  chief  event  was 
the  reorganization  of  the  financial  system.  Hamilton's  famous 
reports  and  the  debates  in  Congress  to  which  they  gave  rise 
called  forth  a  mass  of  criticism  in  newspapers  and  pamphlets. 
Although  the  tariff  and  the  mint  aroused  very  little  opposition, 
vigorous  attacks  were  made  upon  the  funding  of  the  public 
debt,  the  assumption  of  the  state  debts,  the  establishment  of  the 
bank,  and  the  imposition  of  the  excise  duty  on  distilled  spirits. 
The  arguments  were  similar  to  those  made  in  Congress,  with 
perhaps  a  little  more  emphasis  on  the  appeal  to  sectional  and 
class  prejudices.  The  controversy  was,  however,  by  no  means 
one-sided.  Hamilton's  defenders  were  quite  as  numerous  and 
quite  as  active  as  his  critics,  and  their  productivity  was  equally 
voluminous. 

The  criticisms  were  both  general  and  specific.  The  articles 
published  in  The  National  Gazette  under  the  pseudonyms  "Cam- 
illus"  and  "Caius"  are  good  examples  of  the  general  type  of 
criticism.  "It  is  a  fact  in  our  interior  economy,"  says  Camillus, 
"that  it  is  a  declared1  opinion,  that  the  present  debt  (amounting 
to  70  millions  and  supported  by  imposts  and  excises),  is  a  na 
tional  blessing.'  It  is  a  fact  that  the  principal  measures  of  the 
government  have  been  planned  under  the  influence  of  that  ma 
lign  opinion.  It  is  a  fact  that  immense  wealth  has  been  accu 
mulated  into  a  few  hands  and  that  public  measures  have  favored 
that  accumulation.  It  is  a  fact  that  public  money  appropriated  to 
the  sinking  of  the  debt  has  been  laid  out,  not  so  as  most  to  sink 
the  debt,  but  so  as  to  succour  gamblers  in  the  funds  who  have 
made  from  500  to  800  per  cent  on  their  capitals.  It  is  a  fact 
that  the  bank  law  has  given  a  bounty  of  four  or  five  millions  of 
dollars  to  men,  in  great  part,  of  the  same  description.  It  is  a 
fact  that  a  share  of  this  bounty  went  immediately  into  the  pockets 
of  the  very  men  most  active  and  forward  in  granting  it.  These 

1  The  National  Gazette,  October  20,  1792. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  37 

facts  speak  an  alarming  effort  within  towards  a  monied  aristoc 
racy  and  a  government  by  artifice  and  influence."  "Caius's"  de 
nunciation  of  Hamilton  was  especially  florid  and  picturesque.2 
"He  has  devised  systems  that  have  already  produced  consequences 
most  pernicious  to  the  interests,  honor  and  happiness  of  our 
country;  systems  which  like  seas  of  corruption  will,  if  pursued, 
overwhelm  and  destroy  in  their  poisonous  current,  every  free  and 
valuable  principle  of  our  government. 

"The  funding  project  interweaving  the  plans  of  assumption, 
excise  and  irredeemability  of  debt  and  a  mortgage  of  the  best 
funds  of  the  country  beyond  the  power  of  legislative  control  were 
but  a  single  dash  of  the  pen  of  this  bold  adventurer  and  it 
speedily  became  a  favorite  maxim  with  the  Myrmidons  of  specu 
lation  who  sprang  up  like  Hydras  in  every  quarter,  eager  to  root 
on  the  best  blood  and  treasure  of  the  people  'that  the  power  and 
efficacy  of  the  new  system  should  be  tried  at  its  outset  by  an  ex 
periment  of  measures  to  the  full  extent  of  the  authority  granted 
and  that  opposition,  if  any,  had  better  be  met  in  its  earlier  than 
more  advanced  stages.'  The  next  project  was  the  Bank  scheme 
which  may  be  regarded  as  the  consummation  of  the  funding 
project  and  the  union  of  the  government  itself  with  the  new  cre 
ated  monied  interests  which  that  produced  and  the  last  project  is 
that  of  manufactures  so  called,  or  in  other  words,  a  new  system 
of  monopolies,  exclusive  privileges  and  charters  of  incorporation, 
grounded  on  the  favorite,  new  assumed  doctrine  of  discretion  and 
the  undefined  powers  of  Congress. 

"The  baneful  effects  of  the  funding  system 

will  be  found  in  its  combination  with  the  Bank,  manufactures  and 
monopoly  schemes,  all  of  which  are  to  be  regarded  as  links  of 
the  same  chain.  Two  principles  are  also  produced  by  this  sys 
tem,  each  of  them  alike  novel  and  repugnant  to  the  genius  and 
spirit  of  the  federal  constitution ;  the  first,  a  power  in  Congress 
and  that  exclusively  too,  of  the  states,  to  grant  charters  of  incor 
poration  and  monopolies,  the  other,  the  practicability  of  having 


2  Ibid.,  January  16,  1792. 


38  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

in  Congress,  placement,  or  in  other  words,  members,  who  in  the 
character  of  Bank  directors  may  receive  salaries  and  emoluments 
from  a  corporation  which  they  themselves  have  created,  which 
salaries  and  emoluments  being  at  all  times  in  the  discretion  of 
the  stockholders,  may  be  augmented  to  any  amount  and  produce 
all  the  consequences  of  an  actual  bribe. 

"Certain  I  am  that  in  whatever  degree  the  measures  I  have 
scrutinized  may  be  hostile  to  the  first  principles  of  the  govern 
ment,  the  great  agricultural  interests  of  the  community  will  be 
thereby  rendered  subordinate,  tributary,  and  dependent  upon  the 
new  created,  associated  and  associating  interests  of  speculation, 
commerce  and  manufactures  and  the  equal  rights  and  equal  in 
terests  of  the  yeomanry  of  our  country,  who  constitute  its 
strength,  its  wealth,  and  its  firmest  pillars,  will  be  shamefully 
prostrated  at  the  shrine  of  Mammon  and  Ambition." 

2.     The  Funding  of  the  Public  Debt 

"Agricola,3  in  advocating  the  funding  of  the  public  debt, 
several  months  before  Hamilton  submitted  his  report,  points  out 
the  similarity  between  our  situation  in  1789  and  that  of  the  Brit 
ish  in  the  reign  of  William  III.  Specie  was  scarce,  there  was 
a  general  lack  of  confidence  in  the  government  and  public  se 
curities  had  fallen  40  to  60  per  cent.  Mr.  Montague,  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer,  saved  the  situation  by  funding  the  public  debt 
and  putting  England's  credit  on  a  firm  basis.  This  policy  formed 
the  foundation  for  England's  greatness.  Immense  sums  of 
money  flowed  into  the  country,  its  value  was  lessened  and  the 
ministry  was  able  gradually  to  reduce  the  interest  on  the  public 
debt.  Industry  was  stimulated  by  the  abundance  of  money, 
taxes  were  easily  paid  and  the  funded  debt  increased  the  circu 
lating  medium.  "From  the  day  that  such  a  system  is  adopted  and 
pursued,  we  may  date  the  commencement  of  the  rising  splendor 
of  this  country.  Every  palliative  or  plan  that  may  fall  short  of 
this  system  will  only  postpone  this  glorious  period." 


a  Pennsylvania  Packet,  April  18,  1789. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  39 

Other  reasons  given  in  the  Packet  for  the  funding  of  the 
debt  were  as  follows  :4 

(1)  Funding  a  debt  creates  an  artificial  capital  which  in 
vigorates  industry.  (2)  Public  credit  is  a  mine  of  wealth;  it 
will  supply  the  exigencies  of  the  country  with  money  attracted 
from  abroad  at  the  usual  rate  of  interest.  This  money,  employed 
in  commerce,  agriculture,  and  manufactures  will  yield  a  profit 
far  above  the  rate  of  interest  paid.  The  balance  will  be  a 
clear  gain  to  the  country  and  will  contribute  to  the  support 
of  additional  taxes.  Foreigners  who  once  deposit  their  wealth 
here  will  be  interested  in  the  welfare  of  this  country,  will  be  in 
clined  to  immigrate  with  their  families  and  make  a  valuable  ad 
dition  to  our  population  and  resources.  (3)  The  United  States, 
situated  as  she  is  near  the  valuable  possessions  of  the  "great  mari 
time  powers  of  Europe,  will  be  exposed  to  the  need  of  active  in 
terference  in  the  quarrels  of  those  nations,  if  she  is  not  in  a  con 
dition  to  support  her  neutrality.  It  was  the  deranged  state  of 
her  finances  which  compelled  France  to  abandon  her  Allies,  the 
Dutch,  and  to  submit  to  the  humiliating  peace  which  England 
dictated.  "The  United  States  cannot  expect  to  be  exempt  from 
the  calamities  that  other  nations  have  experienced  from  a  loss  of 
public  credit  and  a  feeble  administration  of  their  affairs."  (4) 
We  cannot  argue  that  the  United  States  is  unable  to  establish 
public  credit  by  funding  the  debt  because  of  a  lack  of  resources. 
She  has  resources  far  beyond  any  demands  that  can  be  made 
upon  them  to  satisfy  just  claims. 

"The  Observer,"5  writing  to  the  American  planters  and  farm 
ers,  endeavors  to  impress  upon  them  the  fact  that  it  is  vital  to 
their  interests  that  the  credit  of  the  nation  be  put  on  a  firm  basis. 
He  argues  that  the  farming  class  in  this  country  is  so  numerous 
and  holds  so  great  a  proportion  of  the  property  that  it  has  a  right 
to  a  decided  influence  in  the  measures  of  the  government.  Ag 
riculture  now  is,  and  for  a  century  to  come,  must  remain  the 
prevailing  interest.  'The  war  of  independence  was  yours — our 


4  Ibid.,  August  17,  1789. 

6  Pennsylvania  Packet,  "The  Observer."  X,  January  4,  1790. 


40  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

present  form  of  government  became  a  sacred  reality  by  the  seal 
of  your  suffrages,  and  the  measures  of  the  Treasury  Department 
must  be  addressed  to  your  good  understanding  and  sense  of  na 
tional  honor  to  render  them  successful.  The  evils  resulting  from 
a  loss  of  public  credit  may  affect  others  first — on  you  they  fall 
heaviest.  Merchants,  monied  men  and  those  who  have  great 
property  afloat  are  on  the  watch — they  have  leisure  to  collect  ev 
ery  information,  a  correspondence  by  every  post  and  through 
half  the  world  advertise  them  of  the  evil  and  their  property  by 
some  change  in  its  situation  is  secured,  while  you,  without  in 
formation  and  unsuspicious,  are  ensnared.  Every  possible  im 
position  in  public  credit  will  operate  thus — either  the  price  of 
your  produce  will  fall  or  the  articles  you  purchase  rise,  or  the 
deceitful  medium  center  in  your  hands 

"The  first  thing  you  ought  to  demand  is  a  stable  system  for  the 
public  debt  which  may  be  done  by  placing  the  whole  of  every 
description  under  one  responsible  board ;  the  next  is  a  circulat 
ing  medium  of  fixed  value.  To  accomplish  this,  I  am  sensible 
there  must  be  some  kind  of  direct  taxation  by  the  United  States, 
for  it  is  not  probable  that  an  impost  and  excise  will  equitably 
fund  the  whole  debt."  The  separate  states  now  exercise  direct 
taxation;  if  this  were  all  taken  over  by  the  general  government, 
there  would  be  such  a  saving  that  a  part  of  what  is  now  paid 
would  suffice.  The  articles  taxed,  the  rates,  and  the  methods  of 
collection  are  different  in  the  thirteen  states.  Many  more  tax 
collectors  are  thus  employed  and  there  is  room  for  much  corrup 
tion.  The  writer  suggests  that  the  United  States  government 
assume  the  debts  of  the  states.  In  addition  to  the  impost  and 
excise,  let  there  be  a  direct  tax  on  the  single  article  of  improved 
land  at  three  cents  an  acre.  This  will  suffice  to  establish  our 
public  credit.  This  will  mean  a  great  saving,  as  not  more  than 
one  third  the  amount  that  is  being  paid  will  be  needed. 

Those  who  contended  against  paying  in  full  the  holders  of 
alienated  certificates  did  so  on  the  ground  that  most  of  such 
holders  were  speculators  who  had  taken  advantage  of  the  exi 
gencies  of  the  original  creditors  of  the  government  to  make  large 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  41 

sums  of  money.  "A  customer,"6  writing  in  their  defense,  ar 
gues  as  follows :  'The  holders  of  such  certificates  are  called 
speculators,  and  what  then?  Is  not  every  member  of  the  com 
munity  a  speculator?  Is  it  not  as  just  and  as  honorable  to  specu 
late  in  certificates  as  in  houses,  land,  articles  of  merchandise, 
etc.  ?  Nay,  in  many  instances  much  more  so.  Especially,  when 
the  present  holders  had  compassion  on  the  original  holders  and 
bought  their  certificates  at  the  market  price  and  at  a  considerable 
risk,  while  those  of  toryish  principles  would  not  touch  them  and 
I  am  mistaken  if  it  be  not  these  that  are  now  endeavoring  to  raise 
an  outcry.  But  the  certificates  have  altered  in  value.  Very  true. 
And  what  species  of  property  is  it  that  has  not  undergone  the 
same  fate,  gold  itself  not  excepted?  Did  they  not  change  value 
in  the 'hands  of  the  holders  for  the  time  being?  Must  not  every 
holder  of  property,  be  it  of  what  kind  it  may,  abide  by  the  change 
of  its  value?" 

The  objection  most  frequently  advanced  against  restoring  the 
credit  was  that  the  original  creditors  had  disposed  of  their 
claims  at  a  low  price  and  that  if  the  government  were  to  fulfil 
its  promises  it  would  not  benefit  the  real  sufferers.  "Observer,"7 
however,  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  part  of  the  public  debt  which 
has  been  sold  at  a  low  price,  is  only  a  small  part  of  the  aggregate 
debt.  "It  is  a  small  proportion  of  the  national  paper  which 
hath  made  the  show  in  circulation.  The  speculation  in  paper  hath 
been  a  kind  of  gambling,  artificially  kept  up  between  distant 
parts,  a  few  sagacious  ones  have  been  fortunate  and  many  have 
been  losers.  Thus  circumstanced,  by  many  times  passing  and  re- 
passing,  a  small  proportion  of  the  public  paper  hath  made  a  great 
appearance.  The  great  weight  of  debt  is  still  in  the  hands  of 
the  original  holders,  men  who  loaned  or  did  service  for  their 

country   from  noble   motives men   who  had   rather 

brave  some  distress  in  their  private  circumstances  than  sell  their 
just  claims  for  a  trifle."  Of  those  who  have  alienated  their 
certificates,  some  did  so  from  necessity  because  of  the  tardiness 


6  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  February  3,   1790. 

7  Pennsylvania  Packet,  February  18,  1790. 


42  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

of  the  government  in  paying  its  obligations.  To  them  sympathy 
is  due,  but  those  who  disposed  of  their  certificates  out  of  pure 
speculation  justly  deserve  to  suffer  a  loss. 

"Mercator,"  writing  in  the  National  Gazette  some  two  years 
later,  attempted  to  show  that  the  public  debt  was  not  being  ex 
tinguished  by  the  funding  system,  but  was  rather  being  increased. 
Hamilton  answered  these  charges  in  two  letters  published  in  the 
same  paper  under  the  name  of  "Civis."8 

In  the  first  letter,  September  5,  1792,  "Civis"  characterized 
"Mercator"  as  follows :  "He  has  shown  in  the  true  spirit  of  a 
certain  junto  (who,  not  content  with  the  large  share  of  power 
they  have  in  the  government  are  incessantly  laboring  to  monop 
olize  the  whole  of  its  power  and  to  banish  from  it  every  man  who 
is  not  subservient  to  their  preposterous  and  all-grasping  views), 
that  he  has  been  far  more  solicitous  to  arraign  than  to  manifest 
the  truth — to  take  away,  than  to  afford  consolation  to  the  people 
of  the  United  States."  As  proof  that  the  debt  of  the  United 
States  has  increased  and  is  continuing  to  increase  "Mercator" 
cited  the  "present  amount  and  the  increasing  weight  of  the  duties 
of  impost  and  excise."  "Let  facts,"  says  "Civis,"  "decide  the 
soundness  of  this  logic.  In  the  last  session  of  Congress,  the  only 
excise  duty  which  exists  was  reduced  upon  an  average  15  per 
cent.  The  only  addition  which  was  then  made  to  the  imposts  was 
for  carrying  on  the  Indian  war  and  by  avoiding  recourse  to  per 
manent  loans  for  that  purpose  to  avoid  an  increase  of  the  debt. 
How  then  can  that  which  was  done  to  avoid  an  increase  of  debt, 
be  a  proof  that  it  has  increased?" 

Hamilton's  second  letter  was  dated  September  11,  1792.  Af 
ter  discussing  further  "Mercator's"  arguments,  "Civis"  makes 
this  statement.  "It  is  sufficient  to  observe  that  one  good  effect 
of  the  measures  of  finance  which  have  been  adopted  by  the  pres 
ent  government  is  at  least  unequivocal.  The  public  credit  has 
been  effectually  restored." 

Another  letter  written  by  Hamilton  in  defense  of  his  measures 


8  Hamilton's  Works,  Federal  Edition,  vol.  Ill,  pp.  28-40. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  43 

and  signed  "Fact,"  appeared  in  the  National  Gazette  the  same  day 
as  the  second  letter  to  "Mercator."9  The  object  of  this  letter  is 
to  examine  into  the  foundations  of  the  statement  that  "certain 
characters  are  charged  with  advocating  the  pernicious  doctrine 
that  'public  debts  are  public  blessings'  and  with  being  friends  to 
a  perpetuation  of  the  public  debt  of  the  country."  "Fact"  is 
confident  that  the  particular  person  aimed  at  is  the  secretary,  and 
goes  on  to  say  that  "that  officer,  it  is  very  certain,  explicitly  main 
tained  that  the  funding  of  the  existing  debt  of  the  United  States 
would  render  it  a  national  blessing ;  and  a  man  has  only  to  travel 
through  the  United  States  with  his  eyes  open,  and  to  observe  the 
invigoration  of  industry  in  every  branch  to  be  convinced  that  the 
position  is  well  founded.  But,  whether  right  or  wrong,  it  is  quite 
a  different  thing  from  maintaining  as  a  general  proposition  that 
a  public  debt  is  a  public  blessing,  particular  and  temporary  cir 
cumstances  might  render  that  advantageous  at  one  time  which  at 
another  might  be  hurtful."  "Fact"  gives  extracts  from  the  sec 
retary's  reports  to  show  that  his  conduct  and  language  have  been 
uniformly  in  opposition  to  the  views  charged  against  him.  The 
reports,  he  says,  are  so  long  that  most  people  do  not  take  time  to 
read  them  and  this  gives  his  calumniators  an  opportunity  to  mis 
inform  the  public.  It  is  very  difficult  to  satisfy  every  one.  "A 
certain  description  of  men  are  for  getting  out  of  debt,  yet  are 
against  all  taxes  for  raising  money  to  pay  it  off ;  they  are  among 
the  foremost  for  carrying  on  war  and  yet  will  have  neither  loans 
nor  taxes.  They  are  alike  opposed  to  what  creates  debt  and  to 
what  avoids  it."10 

The  opponents  of  the  funding  system  were  as  vehement  in 
denunciation  as  its  advocates  were  in  its  support.  "A  citizen  of 
Philadelphia"11  writes  that  it  is  absurd  to  reason  in  favor  of  the 
redemption  of  alienated  certificates  at  their  nominal  value.  This 
demand  is  made  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  they 
are  composed  of  the  widows,  orphans,  soldiers,  and  farmers  who 
were  compelled  by  necessity  to  sell  their  certificates  to  brokers 


"September   11,   1792. 

10  Hamilton's   Works,  vol.  Ill,  pp.  40-45. 


44  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

and  speculators.  They  are  the  persons  who  pay  the  30  per  cent 
upon  their  own  certificates  and  have  to  toil  and  labor  to  redeem 
them.  "There  is  not  a  despotic  government  in  Europe  that 
would  dare  to  perpetrate  such  a  flagitious  act  of  oppression  and 
injustice.  In  more  temperate  and  virtuous  times,  the  authors  of 
such  a  proposition  will  be  considered  as  the  scourges  and  pests  of 
mankind."  The  following  poem  appeared  in  the  Pennsylvania 
Gazette12  soon  after  Hamilton  presented  his  report  on  the  public 
credit : 

"Tax    on    Tax,"    young    Belcour    cries, 
"More  imposts   and   a  new   excise, 

A  public  debt's  a  public  blessing, 

Which  'tis  of  course  a  crime  to  lessen." 

Each  day  a  fresh  report  he  broaches, 

That  spies  and  Jews  may  ride  in  coaches, 

Soldiers  and  farmers  don't  despair, 

Untax'd  as  yet,  are  Earth  and  Air. 

Against  those  advocates  of  the  funding  system  who  turned  to 
England  as  the  great  example  of  a  nation  prosperous  under  a 
national  debt,  "A  Pennsylvanian"13  argues  that  "the  wealth  of 
Britain  is  less  owing  to  her  debt  than  to  her  wars  and  extortions 
in  the  East  and  West  Indies  .  .  .  The  present  debt  of  the 
United  States,  if  funded  and  entailed  upon  our  posterity  as  has 
been  proposed,  will  not  only  bend  our  shoulders  but  sink  our 
whole  bodies  into  the  earth."  The  government  will  be  able  to  bor 
row  money  at  will  and  engage  in  wars  without  the  consent  of 
the  people.  The  debt  will  necessitate  the  creation  of  four  or  five 
thousand  revenue  officers  "who  will  devour  the  fruits  of  our  in 
dustry  like  so  many  locusts  and  caterpillars."  Oppressive  land 
taxes  will  be  necessary,  because  the  impost  and  excise  duties  as 
they  are  multiplied  will  be  eluded.  The  power  of  the  executive 
department  will  be  so  increased  as  "to  destroy  the  balance  of  the 
constitution  and  thereby  to  introduce  monarchy  into  our  coun 
try."  "The  public  debt  will  promote  bloody  penal  laws,  disaffec- 


11  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  March  11,   1789. 

u  March  17,  1790. 

13  Ibid.,  April  21,  1790. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  45 

tion  to  the  government,  bribery,  perjury,  idleness,  gambling, 
poverty,  misery,  and  slavery." 

"A  Farmer"  contributed  a  series  of  articles  on  the  funding 
system  in  the  Pennsylvania  Gazette  during  the  early  months  of 
1790.  Writing  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  agricultural  class, 
he  could  see  in  the  financial  measures  of  the  federal  government 
only  ruin  to  the  group  he  represented.  "Such  injustice  and  op 
pression  may  be  colored  over  with  fine  words,  but  there  is  a 
time  coming  when  the  pen  of  history  will  detect  and  expose  the 
folly  of  the  arguments  in  favor  of  the  proposed  funding  system 
as  well  as  its  iniquity.  Instead  of  disgracing  our  country,  by 
treating  our  army  with  so  much  ingratitude  and  injustice,  it 
would  be  far  better  to  double  the  public  debt  by  paying  the  soldier 
and  speculator  the  same  sum.  If  the  balance  still  due  the  army 
is  paid  them,  it  would  spread  money  through  every  county  and 
township  of  the  United  states,  if  paid  to  the  speculator,  all  the 
cash  of  the  United  States  would  soon  center  in  our  cities  and 
later  in  England  and  Holland."14 

In  another  article,  the  same  writer  urges  that  the  original 
holders  be  paid  6  per  cent  according  to  contract  and  the  pur 
chaser  3  per  cent.  That  the  original  holders  sold  their  certificates 
for  any  other  reason  than  necessity,  he  declares  is  true  only  in 
rare  instances.  "A  hungry  creditor,  a  distressed  family,  drove 
most  of  them  to  the  Broker's  Office  and  compelled  them  to  sur 
render  up  their  certificates.  The  whole  report  of  the  Secretary 
(as  he  so  often  styles  himself),  is  so  flimsy  and  so  full  of  ab 
surdities,  contradictions  and  impracticabilities,  that  it  is  to  be 
hoped  it  will  be  voted  out  of  Congress  without  a  dissenting 
vote."15  The  funding  system,  he  thinks,  will  have  the  following 
results  in  this  country:  (1)  All  the  cash  will  be  drawn  from  the 
country  to  our  cities  and  from  there  exported  to  England  and 
Holland  to  pay  the  annual  interest  of  our  greatly  oppressive  debt. 
(2)  It  will  be  impossible  for  farmers  to  borrow  money  to  im 
prove  their  lands,  for  who  will  lend  money  to  an  individual 


14  Ibid.,  January  27,  1790. 
"Ibid.,  February  3,  1790. 


46  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

for  6  per  cent  when  government  securities  will  yield  from  8  to 
12  per  cent?  (3)  It  will  check  trade  and  manufactures.  (4) 
It  will  fill  our  country  with  brokers  and  idle  speculators.  (5) 
It  will  produce  a  principal  of  $200,000  for  a  few  nabobs  in  each 
of  the  states  who  will  use  the  money  buying  townships  and  coun 
ties  to  be  cultivated  by  tenants  who  will  administer  to  the  ambi 
tion  and  power  of  these  nabobs  ''enabling  them  to  establish  titles 
and  overthrow  the  liberties  of  our  country." 

'The  farmers,"  he  continues,  "never  were  in  half  the  danger 
of  being  ruined  by  the  British  government  that  they  now  are  by 
their  own.  Had  any  person  told  them  in  the  beginning  of  the 
war  that  after  paying  the  yearly  rent  of  their  farms  for  seven 
years  to  carry  on  this  war,  at  the  close  of  it  their  farms  should 
not  be  worth  more  than  one-fourth  of  their  original  cost  and 
value,  in  consequence  of  a  funding  system,  is  there  a  farmer 
that  would  have  embarked  in  the  war?  No  there  is  not!  Great 
Britain  paid  the  Tories  for  their  loyalty,  although  they  did  her 
cause  more  harm  than  good.  Certainly  the  United  States  should 
not  have  less  gratitude  to  her  most  deserving  citizens  than  Great 
Britain  has  shown  to  her  least  deserving  subjects."  In  another 
article  "A  Farmer"16  complains  that  all  the  benefits  of  the 
funding  system  are  to  go  to  New  York  as  that  city  was  ad 
mitted  early  into  the  secrets  of  the  Treasury.  "North  and 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  who  all  gave  pure  whig  blood  for 
their  certificates  are  to  be  cajoled  out  of  them  by  a  few  rich 
New  York  Tories  and  British  agents  who  perhaps  helped  TO 
feed  the  very  armies  that  destroyed  the  Southern  States  and  all 
the  taxes  paid  by  them  are  to  center  in  New  York."  In  dis 
cussing  the  means  to  be  employed  to  raise  the  money  needed  to 
re-establish  the  credit  as  Hamilton  outlined,  "A  Farmer"17 
thinks  a  land  tax  would  be  preferable  to  the  kind  of  tax  pro 
posed  by  the  Secretary.  We  pay  a  land  tax  once  a  year  and  are 
then  done  with  it,  but  if  the  Secretary's  plan  is  carried  out  we 
shall  have  to  pay  a  shilling  or  so  a  day  on  everything  we  eat. 


16  Ibid.,  February  10,   1790. 
"Ibid.,  February  17,  1790. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  47 

drink  or  wear.  This  daily  tax  must  come  out  of  the  produce  of 
our  farms  and  the  labour  of  our  hands.  The  farms  must  finally 
pay  the  immense  tax  that  is  to  be  raised  to  pay  the  speculators." 

At  the  beginning  of  the  war,  it  was  understood  that  the  crown 
lands  which  had  been  ceded  to  the  government  were  to  pay  the 
expenses  of  the  war.  But  the  lands  had  not  been  used  for  this 
purpose  and  were  being  sold  for  the  trifling  sum  of  a  shilling 
and  six  pence  an  acre.  "Had  these  lands  been  offered  for  sale 
for  alienated  certificates,  they  would  soon  have  swallowed  up 
the  whole  of  that  part  of  the  debt  of  the  United  States,  and 
those  very  foreigners  who  are  now  buying  up  those  certificates 
to  draw  an  interest  on  them,  would  at  this  time  have  been  busy 
in  not  only  purchasing  but  in  settling  our  lands  with  the  farmers 
and  mechanics  of  European  countries."  "A  Farmer"  suggests 
that  it  would  be  well  to  oblige  every  Congressman  speaking  in 
favor  of  the  Secretary's  report,  first  to  lay  his  hands  on  his  heart 
and  swear  he  was  not  a  speculator. 

"Caius"  writing  in  the  National  Gazette18  cites  the  advice 
of  Mirabeau  to  the  American  people,  "that  if  they  wished  to 
preserve  their  liberties,  they  should  avoid  European  systems  of 
finance  and  above  all  never  to  fund  their  public  debt,"  as  proof 
that  they  should  not  accept  the  Secretary's  plan.  "If  it  be  'that 
the  exigencies  of  a  nation  are  at  all  times  equal  to  its  resources/ 
the  system  of  funding  may  be  regarded  as  the  true  secret  of 
rendering  public  debt  (not  public  credit)  immortal."  He  also 
argued  that  a  funded  debt  is  a  great  source  of  corruption,  as  it 
creates  a  monied  interest  distinct  from  the  great  body  of  the 
people,  and  that  the  public  faith  might  have  been  equally  pre 
served  by  the  policy  of  discharging  the  principal  of  the  debt  as 
far  and  as  fast  as  the  resources  of  the  country  would  permit  and 
by  the  prompt  payment  of  the  annual  interest.  "Less  is  it  to  be 
doubted  that  the  great  influx  of  money  and  with  it  the  rising 
credit  of  our  country  for  the  last  three  years  has  been  principally 
occasioned  by  those  necessities  of  the  European  nations  which 
produced  a  greatly  increased  demand  for  our  produce  and  by  the 


"Caius,"  II,  January  26,  1792. 


48  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

operation  of  the  impost,  tonnage  and  excise  laws  of  Congress 
which  brought  into  the  coffers  of  the  general  government  the 
whole  commercial  revenue  of  the  United  States." 

Hamilton  expressed  the  wish  "that  the  creation  of  debt  should 
always  be  accompanied  with  the  means  of  extinguishment."  But 
history  and  experience,  so  "Caius"  argues,19  have  taught  us  that 
such  a  wish  is  wholly  inapplicable  to  nations  that  have  once 
adopted  funding.  The  examples  of  European  countries  and 
particularly  England,  show  us  plainly,  that  a  funded  debt  makes 
it  easier  to  borrow.  The  legislature  finds  it  more  convenient  to 
borrow  than  to  impose  new  taxes  until  finally  the  debt  is  so  huge 
that  to  support  public  credit  and  the  needs  of  the  nation,  further 
burdens  must  be  placed  on  the  property  and  industry  of  the  com 
munity.  Neither  could  the  sinking  fund  be  an  effective  means 
for  extinguishing  the  debt.  Whenever  a  need  should  arise  be 
yond  the  existing  ability  to  obtain  a  loan,  the  sinking  fund  would 
be  regarded  as  a  subsidiary  fund,  as  a  security  upon  which  to 
raise  more  money,  thus  facilitating  the  contraction  of  new  debts 
while  intended  for  the  discharge  of  the  old.  "Brutus,"20  writing 
in  the  National  Gazette,  sums  up  his  objections  to  the  funding 
system  as  follows :  It  has  given  added  weight  to  the  general 
government  and  particularly  to  the  Treasury  Department  which 
was  never  contemplated  by  the  framers  of  the  constitution  by 
throwing  the  huge  sum  of  fifty  million  dollars  into  the  hands  of 
the  wealthy  and  has  attached  them  to  all  its  measures  by  motives 
of  private  interest.  This  great  monied  interest  has  been  made 
formidable  by  means  of  a  bank  monopoly.  By  means  of  unlim 
ited  impost  and  excise  laws  "the  funding  system  has  anticipated 
the  best  resources  of  the  country  and  swallowed  them  all  up  in 
future  payments."  The  wealth  of  the  country  has  been  trans 
ferred  to  the  possession  of  rich  speculators,  both  foreign  and 
domestic,  while  the  industrious  mechanics  and  farmers  and  the 
poorer  class  in  general  are  compelled  forever  to  pay  tribute  to 
these  highly  favored  classes.  These  speculators  are  either  for- 


19  National  Gazette,  "Caius,"  IV,  February  9,   1792. 

20  "Brutus"  I,  March  15,  1792. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  49 

eigners  or  people  closely  associated  with  the  Treasury.  "Almost 
the  whole  of  the  United  States,  like  Roman  provinces,  will  even 
tually  become  tributary  to  the  seat  of  government  or  one  or  two 
large  maritime  towns  and  the  continual  drains  they  will  suffer 
will  either  be  dissipated  in  luxury  and  licentiousness  at  the  seat 
of  government  or  be  exported  to  foreign  countries  for  the  use 
of  foreign  stock-holders."  By  being  given  opportunities  to  make 
enormous  profits,  people  are  drawn  from  "their  habits  of  pro 
ductive  labour"  and  capital  formerly  used  in  commerce  is  diverted 
to  the  purpose  of  speculation. 

In  another  letter,  "Brutus"21  calls  the  attention  of  his  fellow- 
citizens  to  the  ever  increasing  power  of  the  secretary  which  he 
thinks  is  such  as  to  occasion  apprehension.  "It  does  not  appear 
to  me  to  be  a  question  of  federalism  or  anti-federalism,  but  it 
is  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  against  the  people.  .  .  . 
The  influence  which  the  Treasury  has  on  our  government  is 
truly  alarming,  it  already  forms  a  center  around  which  our  poli 
tical  system  is  beginning  to  revolve  .  .  .  The  state  of  our 
country  is  critical  .  .  .  To  none  is  the  present  a  period  of 
more  consequence  than  to  the  mechanic :  already  monopolies  have 
been  established  at  his  expense.  .  .  .  What  will  be  the  fate 
of  any  private  manufacturer  who  shall  see  a  national  manufac 
tory  rising  into  existence  whose  workmen  shall  have  exclusive 
privileges  such  as  exemption  from  militia  duty  and  the  like?" 

According  to  "American  Farmer,"22  the  practice  of  fund 
ing  has  gradually  enfeebled  every  state  which  has  adopted  it. 
The  funding  system  is  highly  unjust  as  it  mortgages  the  labour 
of  posterity.  "By  this  means  the  quantity  of  property  in  the 
country  is  greatly  increased  in  idea  as  compared  to  former 
times.  .  .  yet  not  at  all  increased  in  reality.  We  may  boast 
of  large  quantities  of  money  but  this  exists  only  in  name,  in 
paper,  in  public  faith."  In  a  later  discussion  of  the  same  sub 
ject,23  the  writer  gives  further  arguments  against  the  funding 


21  National  Gazette,  September  1,  1792. 

2  "American  Farmer."  IV,  National  Gazette,  March  2,  1793. 
"Ibid.,  V,  March  9,  1793. 


50  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

system.  It  will  cause  a  confluence  of  people  and  wealth  to  the 
capital  by  the  great  sums  levied  in  the  provinces  to  pay  the  in 
terest  on  the  debt.  Taxes  levied  to  pay  the  interest  on  the  debt 
are  apt  either  to  heighten  the  price  of  labour  or  be  an  oppression 
to  the  poorer  classes.  Foreigners  by  possessing  a  large  share 
of  our  national  funds  may  come  to  have  too  much  influence  in  our 
government.  Funding  will  encourage  many  to  live  a  useless  and 
inactive  life  as  the  greater  part  of  public  stock  is  always  in  the 
hands  of  idle  people  who  live  on  their  revenue.  Finally,  fund 
ing  will  prevent  the  farmer  from  making  necessary  improve 
ments  on  his  property  as  his  revenue  will  be  considerably  dimin 
ished  by  the  excise  and  other  taxes.  Another  writer24  sees  no 
reason  why  we  should  put  our  credit  on  a  firm  basis  in  order 
to  be  able  to  borrow  readily.  We  are  so  far  removed  from  every 
foe  that  we  do  not  need  to  make  the  same  provision  for  our  na 
tional  defence  as  European  countries.  "We  do  not  need  to  in 
crease  our  military  or  naval  armament ;  we  do  not  have  to  spend 
money  for  court  intrigue." 

Some  of  the  writers  of  the  time  seemed  to  justify  Professor 
Beard's25  contention  that  the  capitalistic  interests  were  respon 
sible  both  for  the  establishment  of  the  government  and  the  adop 
tion  of  the  financial  system.  For  this  evidence,  Beard  had  gone 
to  the  treasury  records  which  show  the  names  of  many  of  those 
creditors  who  funded  their  public  securities  under  the  law  of 
August  4,  1790.  But  the  Treasury  records,  though  trustworthy 
so  far  as  they  go,  are  unfortunately  not  complete.  Beard's 
method  of  procedure  was  as  follows.  The  names  of  all  the  Sena 
tors  and  Representatives  of  the  first  Congress  were  arranged  in 
alphabetical  order.  It  was  then  ascertained  whether  or  not  their 
names  appeared  in  the  Treasury  records  as  having  funded  their 
public  securities.  "A  study  of  the  Treasury  records  shows  that 
the  Senators  who  held  securities  and  voted  for  the  funding  bill 
were,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  among  the  large  holders  of 


"Ibid.,  "Gracchus,"  March  9,  1793. 

26  C.   A.    Beard,   Economic   Origins   of  Jeffcrsonian  Democracy    (New 
York,  1915). 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  51 

public  paper  and  that  the  Senators  of  the  same  class  who  voted 
against  the  bill  were  among  the  minor  holders."26  A  study  of 
the  vote  in  the  House  upon  the  Senate  amendment  to  the  fund 
ing  bill,  providing  for  the  assumption  of  state  debts,  shows  that 
almost  one-half  of  the  members  were  security  holders  and  that 
thirty-two  out  of  the  sixty-four  members  voted  in  favor  of  the 
measure.  "This  certainly  justifies  Jefferson's  assertion  that  had 
those  actually  interested  in  the  outcome  of  the  funding  process 
withdrawn  from  voting  on  Hamilton's  proposals  not  a  single  one 
of  them  would  have  been  carried.  .  . 

"An  examination  of  the  vote  with  reference  to  the  geographi 
cal  distribution  of  the  public  securities  would  seem  to  show  be 
yond  question  that  nearly  all  the  members,  security  holders  and 
non-security  holders  alike,  represented  the  dominant  economic 
interests  of  their  respective  constituencies  rather  than  their  per 
sonal  interests.  In  many  instances  there  was,  it  is  evident,  a 
singular  coincidence  between  public  service,  as  the  members  con 
ceived  it,  and  private  advantage ;  but  the  charge  of  mere  corrup 
tion  must  fall  to  the  ground.  It  was  a  clear  case  of  a  collision  of 
economic  interests;  fluid  capital  versus  agrarianism.  The  rep 
resentation  of  one  interest  was  as  legitimate  as  that  of  the  other, 
and  there  is  no  more  ground  for  denouncing  the  members  of 
Congress  who  held  securities  and  voted  to  sustain  public  credit 
than  there  is  for  denouncing  the  slave-owners  who  voted  against 
the  Quaker  anti-slavery  memorials  on  March  23,  1790."27 

The  following  extract  from  a  pamphlet  by  "An  American 
Farmer"28  illustrates  this  point :  "Whatever  were  the  ostensible 
reasons  for  adopting  the  present  government  of  the  United 
States,  there  is  no  doubt  but  that  it  owed  its  existence  to  the  in 
fluence  and  artifices  of  a  few  men  who  had  taken  advantage  of 
the  distresses  of  the  country  and  who  had  largely  speculated  in 
the  certificates  given  for  services  rendered  by  the  most  merito- 


*Ibid.}  p.  180. 
"Ibid./ -pp.  194-195. 

28  Letters  Addressed  to  the  Yeomanry  of  the  United  States  on  Funding 
and  Banking  Systems   (Philadelphia,   1793),  Letter  I. 


52  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

rious  citizens.  The  farmers  and  soldiers  knowing  how  much 
their  country  had  suffered  during  a  long  contest  to  support  the 
natural  rights  of  men,  accepted  certificates  in  lieu  of  their  full 
pay  although  public  opinion  at  the  very  moment  of  acceptance 
had  reduced  them  to  one-eighth  of  their  nominal  value.  These 
original  and  honorable  creditors,  when  they  parted  with  their 
certificates,  regarded  the  public  opinion  respecting  their  value, 
as  the  most  certain  criterion  of  the  value  of  the  public  debt. 
The  American  farmers  and  soldiers  should  take  care  that  the 
property  sacrificed  by  them  to  their  country  when  in  distress  is 
not  by  a  most  iniquitous  funding  system  now  put  into  the  pockets 
of  undeserving  speculators."  In  a  later  passage  the  writer  char 
acterizes  Hamilton  as  a  "person  who  hitherto  has  been  suffered 
to  assume  too  great  a  degree  of  authority  in  the  government ; 
his  decisions  will  not  be  regarded  as  oracles  except  by  those  who 
never  think  for  themselves  or  are  too  indolent  to  examine  his 
opinions,  always  enveloped  in  darkness  and  mystery."29  Na 
tional  credit30  he  considers  as  a  general  expedient  used  by  modern 
statesmen  to  mortgage  the  property  and  labor  of  posterity  in 
order  to  satisfy  debts  entered  into  by  the  present  generation. 
"What  claim  has  the  present  generation  to  the  property  and  la 
bour  of  posterity?  Such  a  practice  is  highly  unjust  and  criminal. 
I  would  go  farther  and  say  that  the  present  generation  even  to 
preserve  its  own  existence,  has  no  right  to  infringe  upon  the 
property  of  posterity." 

Similar  arguments  were  also  advanced  by  "A  Citizen."31  "In 
the  election  for  the  first  Congress,  care  was  taken  to  choose  none 
that  were  supposed  to  be  inimical  to  the  government.  Those 
who  had  been  the  largest  speculators  and  those  who  looked  for 
offices  under  the  government  were  loudest  in  proclaiming  its  per 
fection  and  most  industrious  in  artfully  raising  the  hue  and  cry 
of  anti-federalism  against  such  candidates  as  they  suspected 
would  not  favor  their  designs ;  excited  by  their  avarice,  they  used 


"Ibid.,  Letter  II. 

30  Ibid.,  Letter  III. 

81 A  Review  of  the  Revenue  System,  Letter  II. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  53 

every  art  to  secure  their  own  or  the  election  of  their  friends.  The 
census  not  being  taken,  the  representation  was  unequal  and  the 
states  where  the  speculators  had  their  principal  interest,  had  too 
great  a  proportion  of  numbers." 

One  of  Hamilton's  arguments  for  funding,  he  says,  was  that 
by  a  rapid  rise  of  the  market  price  of  public  securities  they 
would  be  prevented  from  going  into  the  hands  of  foreigners  at 
a  low  value.  The  funding  system  did  raise  the  price  of  the  se 
curities,  he  admits,  but  it  did  not  prevent  them  from  going 
abroad.  Nominally  it  required  more  money  to  purchase  them, 
but  as  the  payments  were  generally  made  in  goods,  a  large  pro 
portion  of  which  were  luxuries,  it  did  not  add  to  the  riches  of 
the  country  except  through  a  temporary  increase  in  the  revenues. 
If  it  had  been  desired  to  prevent  them  from  falling  into  the  pos 
session  of  foreigners  it  should  have  been  made  a  condition  that 
they  should  remain  the  property  of  citizens  at  least  for  a  limited 
time.  Evidently  the  funding  system  was  designed  for  the  Euro 
pean  market.  To  foreign  purchasers,  alone,  the  irredeemable 
quality  of  the  funded  debt  was  suited.  The  Secretary  had  said 
that  funding  the  debt  would  be  a  national  blessing,  that  the  trans 
fer  of  stock  would  in  most  cases  answer  the  purpose  of  money, 
that  it  would  promote  agriculture  and  manufacturing  and  lower 
the  rate  of  interest.  "Nay  its  effects  have  been  the  very  re 
verse,  for  those  who  might  otherwise  have  purchased  and  im 
proved  lands,  built  houses,  established  manufactures,  or  lent 
their  money  at  interest  to  such  as  would  have  applied  it  to  such 
purposes,  have  vested  their  money  in  the  funds  and  deposited 
their  public  securities  in  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  or  in  the 
banks  of  the  individual  states.  .  .  It  will  not  be  pretended 
that  it  has  lowered  the  rate  of  interest,  for  in  proportion  as  pub 
lic  securities  rose  in  the  market,  the  rate  of  interest  also  rose.  . 
.  .  Far  from  cementing  the  union  of  the  states,  it  has  given 
the  most  deep  and  incurable  wound  to  their  union  and  confi 
dence  in  each  other.  The  citizens  of  one  state  have  been  en 
abled  to  procure  the  public  securities  of  the  citizens  of  the  other 
states  at  a  small  part  of  their  value.  .  .  As  to  adding  to  the 


54  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

security  of  the  states  against  foreign  attack,  the  funding  system, 
by  absorbing  the  revenues  and  impairing  the  confidence  of  the 
people  in  the  fiscal  measures  of  Congress,  has  in  great  degree 
tied  our  hands  while  we  are  buffeted  by  almost  all  the  nations 
with  whom  we  have  any  correspondence."32 

j.     The  Assumption  of  State  Debts 

Another  feature  of  Hamilton's  great  financial  program  which 
gave  rise  to  a  sharp  division  of  public  opinion  was  the  assump 
tion  of  state  debts  by  the  federal  government.  "A  Citizen"33 
charges  corruption  in  the  passage  of  the  Assumption  Act  in  the 
pamphlet  already  quoted,  "Nor  could  it  be  finally  carried,  if  the 
disgraceful  and  venal  bargaining  about  the  seat  of  government 
had  not  been  brought  into  its  aid."  The  writer  goes  on  to  say 
that  most  of  the  states  had  already  discharged  their  debts  or 
made  provision  for  it  and  that  they  should  not  be  made  respon 
sible  for  the  debts  of  the  few  negligent  ones. 

In  another  letter34  he  points  out  that  if  it  had  not  been  for 
assumption  there  would  not  have  been  any  need  for  the  excise, 
for  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  funding  system  had  greatly 
increased  the  domestic  debt,  the  revenue  coming  from  the  im 
posts  would  still  have  been  adequate.  "Consequently,  so  far 
from  preventing  an  interference  with  state  revenues,  the  as 
sumption  of  state  debts  created  the  only  existing  necessity  of 
that  interference."  Another  objection  put  forth  was  that  if  the 
federal  government  were  able  to  pay  the  debts  of  the  states,  the 
states  would  thereby  be  encouraged  in  an  extravagant  and  use 
less  expenditure  of  money.  "Is  paying  back  to  the  states  their 
own  debts  and  the  requisitions  of  interest  which  they  had  dis 
charged  and  thus  enabling  them  to  make  expensive  improvements 
or  squander  away  money  in  unnecessary  purposes  or  in  extrava 
gant  salaries  without  taxing  their  citizens,  while  at  the  same 
time,  the  same  persons  as  citizens  of  the  Union  have  their  estates 


82  Ibid.,  Letter  V. 
"Ibid.,  Letter  III. 
"Ibid.,  Letter  IV. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  55 

mortgaged  for  the  repayment  of  the  same  debt  and  a  growing  in 
terest  in  an  irredeemable  form — I  say  is  this  a  national  bless 
ing  ?"3* 

Another  writer  puts  his  objection  to  assumption  on  the  ground 
that  direct  taxation  by  Congress  would  destroy  the  independence 
of  the  states.  "For  this  [assumption]  there  was  no  general  pe 
tition  from  the  people.  No  urgency  pressed  it.  But  it  favored 
the  object  of  administration.  State  debts  sold  at  a  low  rate  and 
therefore  might  easily  be  monopolized.  To  dissolve  all  money 
relationships  between  individuals  and  the  separate  states,  would, 
on  the  one  hand,  diminish  the  state  power  and  tend  to  consolida 
tion  and,  on  the  other,  create  an  undue  influence  by  which  the 
consolidated  power  might  be  managed.  .  .  Congress  pos 
sessed  the  power  of  indirect  taxation  and  the  states  the  power  of 
direct  taxation.  Hence,  the  public  debt  could  have  been  diffused 
upon  the  resources  of  the  nation  so  as  to  have  been  less  burthen- 
some  upon  an  exclusive  branch  of  those  resources  by  leaving  the 
states  respectively  to  provide  for  state  debts. 

"A  recurrence  to  direct  taxation  by  Congress  will  swallow  up 
the  little  sovereignty  now  left  to  the  once  sovereign,  individual 
states  and  every  accumulation  of  the  debts  of  the  Union  is  an 
impulse  towards  that  end.  .  .  .  Without  pulsation,  without 
elasticity,  they  [the  states]  will  dwindle  gradually  into  a  tale  that 
has  been  told  and  their  parts  will  crumble  and  dissipate  like  a 
corporation  of  beavers  whose  waters  have  been  drained  away."36 

Hamilton's  chief  argument  in  advocating  the  payment  of 
state  debts  by  the  general  government  was  the  matter  of  con 
venience.  So  far  as  the  expenditure  of  money  was  concerned, 
the  amount  needed  would  be  the  same  in  either  case,  but  it  would 
be  far  more  convenient  and  orderly  to  have  one  general  plan 
under  one  authority  than  thirteen  different  schemes  administered 
by  as  many  heads.  Many  saw  his  point  of  view  and  lent  him 


9  Ibid. f  Letter  V. 

16  "An  American  Farmer,"  Letters  Addressed  to  the  Yeomanry  of  the 
United  States  on  the  Funding  and  Banking  Systems  (Philadelphia,  1793), 
Letter  II. 


56  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

their  support.  An  article  in  the  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  December 
30,  1789,  is  particularly  interesting,  coming  as  it  does  before  the 
report  on  Public  Credit  was  issued.  Speaking  of  assumption,  it 
says  :  "It  is  hardly  possible  to  conceive  how  the  peace  and  tran- 
quility  of  the  Union  can  be  preserved  and  justice  done  to  every 
denomination  of  our  domestic  creditors  upon  any  other  plan.  . 
.  .  The  operation  of  one  general  plan  of  taxation  in  conjunc 
tion  with  twelve  or  thirteen  rival  systems,  must  be  attended  with 
inexplicable  difficulties.  The  expense  of  distinct  sets  of  officers, 
the  temptations  to  fraud  by  different  rates  of  duties,  the  difficulty 
of  securing  the  collection  upon  several  thousand  miles  of  fron 
tier,  the  incapacity  of  the  states  to  meddle  with  goods  when  im 
ported  and  so  to  check  frauds,  that  power  being  now  in  Con 
gress  and  many  other  reasons,  all  combine  to  shew  the  absurdity 
of  different  and  clashing  powers  being  exerted  to  effect  that 
which  ought  to  be  one  business." 

Another  article  in  the  same  paper  early  the  next  year37  argued 
in  favor  of  assumption  on  the  same  ground  of  order  and  uni 
formity.  "If  any  of  the  states  should  now  think  the  measures 
against  their  interests,  a  short  time  will  open  their  eyes  to  the 
confusion  which  must  arise  from  a  continuance  in  their  present 
situation."  The  writer  then  goes  on  to  consider  several  propo 
sitions  that  have  been  presented  to  him,  as  affording  means  to 
provide  the  necessary  funds  if  the  state  debts  were  assumed.  He 
considers  first  the  old  method  of  requisition — leaving  to  each 
state  its  own  way  of  collecting  the  sum  demanded.  Those  who 
favor  this  method  assert  that  now  Congress  has  the  power  of 
coercion  and  can  enforce  payment  from  a  delinquent  state. 
But  what  is  to  be  the  subject  of  coercion?  If  it  be  the  state  in 
its  corporate  capacity,  it  can  be  done  only  by  levying  war  upon 
the  whole  people  and  destroying  their  existence  as  a  state;  if 
it  is  to  be  upon  the  private  citizens  as  subjects  of  the  United 
States,  that  would  be  attended  with  many  difficulties.  This  ex 
ercise  of  coercion  would  cause  much  friction  and  ill-feeling  and 


37  February  10,  1790. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  57 

"either  destroy  the  Union  or  annihilate  all  respect  for  the  state 
government  where  it  happens.  .  .  The  doctrine  of  requisition 
on  the  states,  in  every  point  of  view,  is  a  dangerous  and  imprac 
tical  one." 

Another  proposition  which  the  same  writer  examines  is  to 
apportion  to  each  state  its  quota  of  the  sum  needed  and  allow 
Congress  directly  to  tax  the  inhabitants,  following  in  each  state 
the  method  of  taxation  and  collection  which  is  used  by  its  own 
government.  This  plan  proposes  as  many  modes  of  taxing  and 
collecting  as  there  are  states,  as  no  two  states  have  a  similar 
procedure.  For  the  Treasury  Board  of  the  United  States  to 
control  thirteen  different  systems  would  present  many  difficulties 
and  give  room  for  evasion  and  fraud  which  could  never  be  de 
tected.  If  neither  of  these  schemes  can  be  made  to  work  satis 
factorily,  some  plan  must  'be  devised  by  the  government  which 
shall  operate  through  the  whole  country  with  equal  expedition 
and  justice.  The  mode  "of  taxation  must  be  plain  enough  for  the 
people  to  understand  or  else  they  will  not  be  satisfied  and  willing 
to  pay.  "If  there  be  any  kind  of  property  which  is  the  basis 
of  wealth  throughout  the  Union  and  bears  a  near  proportion  to 
the  ability  of  the  people  who  must  pay,  if  this  kind  of  property 
cannot  be  secreted,  if  its  nature  is  such  that  every  man  may  prev 
iously  calculate  his  own  taxes  and  detect  an  over-charge,  if  it  is 
easily  and  cheaply  collected,  if  its  produce  is  ever  in  demand, 
so  the  person  may  pay  his  own  taxes,  this  property  on  plain  prin 
ciples,  should  be  the  subject  of  direct  taxation." 

4.     The  Excise 

Hamilton's  report  recommending  an  excise  was  submitted  to 
Congress  December  13,  1790.  If  the  public  credit  were  to  be 
established  on  a  firm  foundation,  according  to  the  plan  suggested 
in  his  report  of  January  9,  1790,  and  if  the  debts  of  the  states 
were  to  be  assumed,  more  revenue  would  be  necessary  than  the 
existing  duties  supplied,  and  it  was  to  meet  this  deficiency  that 
he  proposed  the  excise.  The  proposition  to  assume  state  debts 
met  with  strenuous  opposition  in  Congress,  and  it  was  only  by 


58  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

the  famous  compromise  between  Jefferson  and  Hamilton  by 
which  southern  votes  were  won  for  assumption  and  northern 
votes  for  a  southern  capital  that  the  scheme  was  finally  put 
through. 

''Sidney",  writing  in  the  National  Gazette  (April  23,  1792), 
says :  "Is  it  not  a  matter,  recorded  and  understood,  that  the 
Assumption  of  the  state  debts  which  alone  created  the  necessity 
of  the  Excise  was  carried  by  a  very  small  majority  of  that  repre 
sentation  and  under  such  circumstances,  too,  of  management  and 
inducement  as  were  not  very  honorable?"  He  goes  on  to  state 
his  objections  to  the  excise.  In  the  first  place  it  is  a  tax  not  con 
sistent  with  liberty.  The  people  cannot  understand  the  excise  as 
well  as  other  direct  taxes.38  It  is  paid  without  the  people  really 
feeling  how  much  they  are  paying  and  is  in  a  measure  taxing 
them  blind-folded. 

His  second  objection  is  the  extent  to  which  the  excise  may 
be  carried.  Hamilton  had  argued  that  the  proposed  excise  was 
the  least  burdensome  source  of  revenue  because  distilled  liquors 
were  luxuries  and  could  stand  heavy  taxation  better  than  any 
thing  else.  To  this  "Sidney"  replies  :  "I  call  upon  the  contrivers 
and  promoters  of  the  system  to  mention  that  nation  which  has 
at  any  time  introduced  Excises  on  its  domestic  produce  or  manu 
factures  without  extending  the  fatal  grasp  to  the  necessities  of 
life  which  must  ever  be  the  most  productive  sources  of  that  spe 
cies  of  revenue."  He  feared  that  if  once  the  excise  were  fully 
established,  it  would  not  long  be  laid  on  spirits  alone,  as  lux 
uries  are  used  by  comparatively  few  and  revenue  from  them 
would  necessarily  be  inadequate  for  the  needs  of  government. 
It  had  been  asserted  by  the  College  of  Physicians  that  the  ob 
ject  in  imposing  the  excise  was  to  promote  health.  This  "Sid 
ney"  denies,  and  in  reply  to  the  suggestion  of  the  Secretary  that 
it  was  to  prevent  drunkenness,  he  says :  "The  Secretary  well 
knew  that  the  habits  and  circumstances  of  new  settlements  in 
particular  rendered  the  use  of  spirits  in  some  degree  necessary." 


38  It  will  be  noted  that  "Sidney"  assumes  that  an  excise  is  a  direct  tax, 
although  his  argument  is  really  based  upon  the  theory  that  it  is  indirect. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  59 

The  real  objection  to  the  tax,  however,  was  political.  The 
people  resented  an  excise  levied  by  the  central  government.  An 
excise  imposed  by  the  state  was  regarded  as  any  other  state  tax 
while  an  excise  by  the  central  government  was  looked  upon  as 
a  burden  imposed  by  an  external  power.  Hoping  to  make  the 
tax  less  obnoxious,  Hamilton  suggested  in  his  report  that  the 
excise  officers  be  allowed  no  discretionary  jurisdiction,  that  there 
be  no  abridgement  to  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  and  that  the  offi 
cers  have  no  general  power  indiscriminately  to  search  the  houses 
and  buildings  of  persons  engaged  in  distilling  liquor.  But  "Sid 
ney"  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  law  can  never  be  executed  until 
these  very  powers  are  vested  in  these  officers.  Some  disregard 
the  law  altogether,  and  some  keep  two  stills,  entering  on  record 
only  one  of  them.  "Sidney"  concludes  his  denunciation  of  the 
excise  in  these  words :  "Any  law  that  increases  crimes,  punish 
ments,  fines,  seizures,  and  confiscation  is  injurious  to  the  liberty 
and  ensnaring  to  the  happiness  of  the  people.  In  all  countries 
where  the  excise  has  prevailed  these  have  been  the  results." 

Speaking  of  the  political  aspect  of  the  tax,  "Sentinel"39  says : 
"The  fate  of  the  excise  law  will  determine  whether  the  powers 
of  government  of  the  United  States  are  held  by  an  aristocratic 
junto  or  by  the  people."  Further,  he  states  that  the  people  have 
been  so  hostile  to  the  measure  that  since  its  establishment  the 
income  from  it  has  not  been  sufficient  to  pay  the  salaries  of  the 
officers  employed  in  its  collection. 

There  were  of  course  those  who  saw  a  favorable  side  to  the 
excise.  A  writer  in  the  Gazette  of  the  United  States,40  asserts 
that  while  the  excise  has  necessarily  diminished  the  consumption 
of  spirituous  liquors,  the  number  of  stills  has  increased.  The 
reasons  for  this  have  been  the  growth  of  population,  the  decrease 
in  the  importation  and  consequent  consumption  of  foreign  spir 
its,  and  the  fact  that  the  encouragement  held  out  in  the  excise 
law  has  caused  much  attention  to  be  given  to  the  manufacture 
of  gin  and  other  spirits.  As  the  result  of  this  encouragement, 


30  National  Gazette,  May  7,  1792. 
40  September  22,  1792. 


60  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

the  quality  will  continually  improve  and  in  a  short  time  the  ex 
port  of  spirits,  already  considerable,  will  be  a  source  of  great 
profit  to  the  country. 

5.     The  Bank 

The  principal  reason  given  by  those  who  opposed  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  National  Bank  was  that  it  was  unconstitutional. 
"A  Pennsylvania!!"41  asserts  that  "all  the  reasoning  in  the  world 
can  never  from  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  deduce  a 
power  in  Congress  to  establish  a  National  Bank.  .  .  .  All 
exclusive  privileges  or  monopolies  to  private  persons,  for  such 
the  incorporated  members  of  the  National  Bank  must  still  be  con 
sidered,  are  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  our  government  and 
the  sacred  rights  of  the  citizens  who  compose  it."  "Caius,"42 
speaking  of  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  members  of  Congress 
holding  the  office  of  bank-directors  under  the  authority  of  a 
law  enacted  by  themselves  and  receiving  emoluments  which  the 
stockholders  shall  vote,  asks,  "Why  under  the  sanction  of  this 
precedent,  may  not  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  himself  be 
eligible  to  a  seat  in  Congress  ?"  The  Secretary's  system,  he  de 
clares,  "Is  built  on  the  basis  of  an  humble  and  servile  imitation 
of  British  Systems  of  finance  and  all  their  baneful  concomitants 
of  debt,  funded  and  unfunded,  annuities,  chances,  lotteries,  and 
schemes  from  British  authors  and  British  statute  books."  He 
characterizes  the  designing  junto  responsible  for  the  bank  as 
"unanimous  and  diligent  in  intrigue,  variable  in  principles,  con 
stant  to  flattery,  talkers  for  liberty,  but  slaves  to  power." 

Many  found  it  difficult  to  reconcile  the  idea  of  a  National 
Bank  with  that  clause  in  the  constitution  which  states  that  "no 
senator  or  representative  shall,  during  the  time  for  which  he  was 
elected,  be  appointed  to  any  civil  office  under  the  authority  of  the 
United  States,  which  shall  have  been  created,  or  the  emoluments 
whereof  shall  have  been  increased  during  such  time ;  and  no  per 
son  holding  any  office  under  the  United  States  shall  be  a  member 


41  The  American  Daily  Advertiser,  February  5,  1791. 
^Letter  III,  in  the  National  Gazette,  February  6,  1792. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  61 

of  either  house  during  his  continuance  in  office."  Some  of  the 
critics  of  the  Bank  argued  in  the  following  manner :  Congress 
establishes  the  Bank.  The  Bank  by  the  authority  of  Congress 
can  create  offices  and  affix  salaries,  payable  in  part  out  of  the 
money  of  the  United  States.  Every  member  of  Congress  can 
make  himself  a  member  of  the  Bank,  can  vote  for  directors  and 
'be  himself  elected  a  director.  Many  have  done  so.  But  how  can 
this  be  constitutional?  The  government  owns  two  millions  of 
the  bank  stock,  and  the  offices  and  salaries  created  for  the  man 
agement  of  it  may  be  considered  as  belonging  to  the  United 
States.  If  the  government  owned  all  the  stock,  the  unconstitu- 
tionality  of  the  case  would  be  perfectly  self-evident.  Further 
more  the  people  of  the  country  are  taxed  to  the  amount  of  one- 
fifth  of  the  whole  bank-stock  and  still  are  not  represented  by  a 
single  vote,  a  clear  contravention  of  that  constitutional  principle 
that  taxation  and  representation  should  always  go  together.  Ev 
ery  other  stock-holder  in  the  Bank  has  votes  in  direct  ratio  to  his 
stock;  why  then  do  not  the  people  of  the  United  States  enjoy 
the  same  privilege  ?  To  those  who  would  say  in  defense  that  the 
British  government  has  no  vote  in  the  Bank  of  England,  it  may 
be  said  it  has  no  stock  to  entitle  it  to  a  vote.43 

"An  American  Farmer"44  declared  that  the  Bank  was  simply 
a  scheme  by  which  the  wealth  of  the  country  was  thrown  into  the 
hands  of  a  few.  It  only  made  the  rich  richer  and  the  poor  poorer. 
The  profits  of  the  Bank  are  really  an  indirect  tax  on  the  com 
munity.  All  who  deal  with  that  institution  constitute  one  class 
and  the  stock-holders  the  other.  The  dealers  deposit  their  bonds 
or  notes  carrying  interest  and  receive  in  exchange  bonds  or  notes 
of  the  stock-holders  bearing  no  interest.  The  difference  between 
receiving  an  interest  out  of  paper  while  it  pays  none  on  similar 
paper  constitutes  the  great  source  of  profit  to  the  Bank.  This 
gain  necessarily  implies  a  loss  which  must  be  borne  by  somebody. 
Either  the  immediate  dealers  with  the  Bank  must  bear  it  or  be 
reimbursed  by  those  who  deal  with  them.  If  not  reimbursed 


43  See  for  example  The  National  Gazette,  July  4,  1792. 

44  Letters  Addressed  to  the  Yeomanry  of  the  United  States,  II. 


62  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

they  would  be  ruined.  Therefore  the  loss  must  fall  upon  the  com 
munity.  "The  contrivance  is  calculated  to  bestow  upon  the  rich, 
interest  upon  the  amount  of  their  credit,  not  of  their  cash.  Bank- 
paper  is  circulated  to  an  amount  far  beyond  a  deposit  in  money. 
It  rests  on  an  idea  called  credit  and  all  interest  gotten  for  this 
surplus  of  paper,  beyond  a  specie  deposit,  is  paid  by  labour  to 
the  rich  because  they  have  what  the  poor  ardently  wish  for.  .  . 
How  delusive  is  a  comparison  between  bank  debts  and  private 
loans.  The  latter  must  consist  of  money  or  money's  worth  and, 
without  one  or  the  other,  debts  between  individuals  cannot  be  cre 
ated.  The  former  may  be  created  though  the  bank  possesses 
neither  money  nor  money's  worth  and  a  banker  may  live  upon  the 
labour  of  others  during  his  whole  life,  if  he  can  conceal  the 
fraud  of  his  being  a  bankrupt.  The  latter  are  limited  within  reas 
onable  bounds  because  they  are  founded  on  real  wealth,  the  for 
mer  may  be  infinitely  multiplied  by  a  printing  press.  In  the  lat 
ter  case,  something  is  given  for  something;  in  the  former  the 
community  pays  something  for  nothing."  In  reply  to  the  asser 
tion  of  the  Secretary  that  the  Bank  would  be  useful  in  support 
ing  the  credit  of  the  government  and  extending  it  aid  in  times  of 
stress,  the  writer  argues  that  "instead  of  supporting  the  credit  of 
the  government,  the  government  must  support  the  credit  of  the 
Bank.  For  if  the  credit  of  the  government  wavers,  public  paper 
cannot  support  the  credit  of  the  Bank.  When  the  government 
shall  need  help,  the  Bank  will  need  it  also."  The  Bank  violates 
the  clearest  constitutional  principles  for  the  following  reasons : 
(1)  Members  of  Congress  may  vote  for  the  creation  of  a  profi 
table  enterprize  and  themselves  receive  the  profit.  (2)  They  may 
impose  a  tax  on  the  community,  or  a  part  of  it,  and  instead  of 
sharing  in  the  burden,  share  in  the  plunder.  (3)  "A  member  of 
Congress,  debauched  by  a  profitable  banking  interest,  ceases  to  be 
a  citizen  of  the  United  States  or  an  inhabitant  of  the  state  which 
chooses  him  as  to  the  purpose  of  the  constitution.  He  becomes  a 
citizen  and  inhabitant  of  Carpenter's  Hall.  (4)  Being  a  member 
of  a  corporation  consisting  chiefly  or  in  part  of  foreigners,  he  is 
more  under  the  influence  of  foreigners  than  of  those  who  elected 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  63 

him.  "The  English  who  could  not  conquer  us,  may  buy  us."  (5) 
If  members  of  Congress  are  stock-holders  and  directors  of  the 
Bank,  then  an  illegitimate  interest  is  operating  upon  the  national 
legislature,  the  representatives  of  the  states  are  enticed  away 
from  their  "natural  and  constitutional  allegiance"  by  their  inter 
est  in  the  Bank.  It  would  be  better  to  allow  the  Bank  to  have 
representatives  in  Congress  than  to  permit  the  states  to  be  robbed 
of  their  just  quota.  (6)  The  constitution  provides  that  charges 
of  impeachment  shall  originate  in  the  House  and  be  judged  in 
the  Senate.  But  if  those  who  are  to  impeach  and  to  decide  upon 
the  validity  of  impeachments  may,  in  consequence  of  the  bank 
ing  and  paper  systems,  be  gainers  by  any  misapplication  of 
money,  it  is  obvious  that  this  check  provided  by  the  constitution 
is  useless."45 


45  Ibid. 


CHAPTER  III 
FOREIGN  RELATIONS 

1.     Neutrality 

Foreign  relations  during  the  Federalist  period  were  chiefly 
concerned  with  the  great  war  in  Europe  between  France  and  the 
Allies.  The  people  of  the  United  States  had  not  yet  developed 
the  spirit  of  diplomatic  isolation  which  later  characterized  our 
foreign  policy,  and,  if  they  had  done  so  our  interests  as  a  neutral 
would  in  any  case  have  made  it  impossible  for  us  to  hold  our 
selves  entirely  aloof.  One  faction  argued  that  we  ought  to  go 
to  the  support  of  France  because  she  had  helped  us  in  our  time 
of  trouble,  because  she  stood  for  the  principles  of  liberalism, 
and  because  we  were  bound  to  her  by  the  treaties  of  1778; 
the  other  defended  the  Neutrality  Proclamation,  justified  the 
Jay  Treaty,  and  tried  to  bring  about  a  war  with  France  in  1798. 
Public  opinion  on  these  issues  was  freely  expressed  in  newspa 
pers  and  pamphlets,  in  festival  parades  and  mass  meetings,  and 
in  the  resolutions  of  the  Democratic  societies  and  other  partisan 
organizations. 

France  declared  war  against  Austria  on  April  20,  1792; 
Prussia  entered  the  conflict  in  the  following  June,  and  Great 
Britain  was  drawn  in  early  in  1793.  The  first  coalition  was 
formed  shortly  afterwards.  The  French  minister,  Genet,  ar 
rived  in  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  on  the  8th  of  April,  and  at 
once  began  to  enlist  troops,  fit  out  privateers,  and  take  prize  ves 
sels  into  American  ports  for  condemnation.  On  the  22nd  of 
April  President  Washington  issued  his  Proclamation  of  Neu 
trality. 

The  first  important  newspaper  attack  upon  the  proclamation 
was  made  by  "Veritas"  in  the  National  Gazette  for  June  1,  1793. 
The  President  was  challenged  to  justify  his  policy  on  the  ground 
of  "duty  and  interest."  According  to  "Veritas,"  the  proclama 
tion  abrogated  the  treaties  already  existing  between  the  United 
States  and  France  "from  which  we  have  long  enjoyed  impor 
tant  advantages ;"  but  if  this  be  the  true  construction,  "how  can 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  65 

the  proclamation  be  considered  as  consistent  either  with  our  duty 
or  interest  ?  With  our  duty  it  cannot  accord,  so  long  as  we  pre 
tend  to  any  faith  as  a  nation  or  remember  with  gratitude  the 
circumstances  under  which  our  treaties  with  France  were  con 
cluded  and  the  generous  exertions  of  that  nation  in  the  cause 
of  American  liberty.  If  it  be  the  duty  of  a  free  nation  to  forget 
those  friends  to  whom  she  is  in  a  great  measure  indebted  for  a 
national  existence ;  to  view  with  cold  indifference  the  struggles 
of  those  very  friends  to  support  their  own  liberties  against  an 
host  of  despots ;  and  in  spite  of  the  reciprocal  ties  of  national 
treaties  to  treat  an  inveterate  and  cruel  enemy  with  the  same 
friendship  as  our  best  and  most  faithful  ally — if  such  be  the  duty 
of  Americans,  as  declared  in  the  proclamation,  then  is  that 
proclamation  to  be  regarded  as  disgraceful  to  the  American 
character." 

As  regards  the  assertion  that  it  was  to  America's  interest  to 
maintain  a  strict  neutrality,  he  says,  "It  never  can  be  consistent 
with  the  interest  of  a  nation  basely  to  disregard  its  plighted 
faith.  .  .  .  It  is  by  no  means  consistent  with  the  interest  of 
the  United  States  to  provoke  the  French  nation  to  hostilities ;  a 
consequence  naturally  to  be  expected  from  the  violation  of  sol 
emn  treaties." 

Some  of  the  advocates  of  neutrality  had  argued  that  there  was 
no  danger  of  the  United  States  being  drawn  into  a  war  with 
France,  no  matter  how  dishonorable  our  conduct  towards  her, 
"For,"  say  they,  "it  will  be  for  the  interest  of  France  that 
America  should  not  be  engaged  in  the  war,  but  be  left  to  furn 
ish  those  supplies  as  a  neutral  nation  which  are  so  necessary  to 
the  sustenance  of  her  army  during  the  war.  .  .  .  These  Solo 
mons,  however,  may  find  themselves  mistaken.  France,  though 
desirous  of  peace  and  friendship  with  us,  is  surely  not  insensible 
to  injury,  neither  is  she  so  abject  as  tamely  to  submit  to  an  open 
violation  of  faith  by  any  nation." 

A  few  days  later,  "Veritas"  contributed  another  article  on 
the  same  subject,1  in  which  he  asked,  "If  a  proclamation  was 


1  National  Gazette,  June  8,  1793. 


66  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

justifiable  and  proper  in  1793,  was  it  not  equally  so  in  1792  when 
several  European  Powers  were  actually  engaged  in  a  war?  If 
so,  why  was  it  deferred  till  Great  Britain  became  a  party?"  He 
went  on  to  criticize  what  he  considered  the  cowardly  attitude  of 
the  government  toward  England.  "For  ten  years  has  that 
haughty  nation  held  possession  of  posts  in  our  territory  in  open 
violation  of  treaty,  as  if  we  were  tributary  provinces."  Whether 
the  government  had  demanded  these  posts  and  been  refused  or 
not,  the  public  had  not  been  informed,  but  the  writer  was  of  the 
opinion  that  if  the  American  people  are  kept  in  the  dark  much 
longer  on  this  subject,  they  would  "take  the  law  into  their  own 
hands  (as  Ethan  Allen  and  his  Green  Mountain  boys  did  in 
1775),  and  wipe  off  the  disgrace  of  the  nation  by  driving  the  in 
vaders  from  our  country.  .  .  Does  not  England's  seizure  of 
our  vessels  bound  for  France,  though  they  carry  no  contraband, 
and  the  retention  of  the  Western  Posts  serve  to  convince  America 
of  the  hostile  views  of  Great  Britain?"2 

During  the  most  critical  period  of  the  Genet  episode,  Presi 
dent  Washington  called  upon  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court 
for  advice  in  interpreting  the  French  treaties  of  1778.  "Juba" 
wished  to  know  why,  if  he  had  any  doubts  on  the  subject,  he  did 
not  consult  the  representatives  of  the  people  in  Congress.  In 
answer  to  his  own  question,  "Juba"3  says  :  "It  is  suspected  that 
a  certain  great  man  who  directs  the  political  movements  of  the 
executive,  though  not  the  officer  of  the  people,  is  a  little  timid  for 
fear  the  present  Congress  should  make  him  pass  through  a  se 
verer  ordeal  than  he  has  hitherto  undergone  and  that  this  is  the 
true  reason  why  the  representatives  of  the  people  are  not  con 
sulted  upon  this  momentous  occasion."4  This  is  very  probable, 
he  continues,  considering  the  fact  that  the  number  of  bank-direc- 


2  Jefferson  thought  that  William  Irvine,  a  clerk  in  the  Treasury,  was 
the   author  of  the  "Veritas"  letters,   while   Genet  thought   that  Jefferson 
himself  wrote  them.    Jefferson's  Writings,  vol.  I,  pp.  235  and  244.     These 
letters,  three  in  number,   were  answered  in  the  National  Gazette  by  "A 
Friend  to   Peace." 

3  National  Gazette,  July  27,  1793. 

4  This  is  one  of  many  references  to  Hamilton  as  Washington's  chief 
adviser. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  67 

tors,  stockholders  and  stockjobbers  is  not  so  great  in  proportion 
to  the  whole  body  of  Congress  as  they  were  at  the  last  session. 

'The  government,"  says  he,  "is  in  an  uproar  because  the 
French  have  fitted  out  a  brig  in  Philadelphia,5  but  appears  to 
slumber  over  the  British  armaments  that  have  been  made  here 
and  the  multiplied  injuries  and  insults  that  our  flag  has  sustained 
from  the  pirates  under  English  colours." 

The  strongest  organized  opposition  to  the  policy  of  neutrality 
came  from  the  Democratic  Society  of  Pennsylvania,  an  organiza 
tion  formed  on  the  model  of  the  Jacobin  Club  in  Paris  and  com 
posed  exclusively  of  French  sympathizers.6  On  January  9,  1794, 
the  Society  passed  the  following  resolutions : 

"3rd.  Resolved  that  we  view  with  inexpressible  horror  the 
cruel  and  unjust  war  carried  on  by  the  combined  powers  of 
Europe  against  the  French  Republic — that  attached  to  the  French 
nation  (our  only  true  and  natural  ally)  by  sentiments  of  the  live 
liest  gratitude  for  the  great  and  generous  services  she  has  ren 
dered  us,  while  we  were  struggling  for  our  liberties  and  by  that 
strong  connection  which  arises  from  a  similarity  of  government 
and  of  political  principles,  we  cannot  sit  passive  and  forbear  ex 
pressing  our  anxious  concern  while  she  is  greatly  contending 
against  a  World  for  the  same  rights  which  she  assisted  us  to 
establish  and  that,  exclusive  of  the  sentiments  so  natural  to 
every  true  American,  the  powerful  motive  of  self-interest  com 
bines  to  connect  us  still  closer  to  France,  for  when  we  see  so 
many  sovereigns  having  different  interests  and  some  of  whom 
are  natural  enemies  to  each  other,  confederate  against  a  single 
Nation  with  no  other  avowed  object  than  that  of  changing  her  in 
ternal  government,  we  cannot  believe  that  they  are  making  war 


5  The  Little  Sarah,  a  vessel  captured  from  the  British  and  fitted  out  by 
Genet  as  a  privateer  in  July,  1793. 

6  The  history  of  this  Society  has  been  treated  briefly  by  J.  B.  McMaster, 
History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States  (New  York,  1883-1914),  vol. 
II,  pp.  109-110,  175-178,  196,  206,  and  by  C.  D.  Hazen,  Contemporary  Ameri 
can    Opinion   of   the   French   Revolution    (Baltimore,    1897),    pp.    188-209. 
For  a  description  of  the  original  manuscript  minutes  of  the   Society  see 
below  p.  158.     For  further  history  of  the  Society  see  below,  chapter  IV. 


68  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

against  that  Nation  solely,  but  against  Liberty  itself.  .  .  It 
therefore  behooves  us,  as  we  value  our  dear  bought  rights  to  give 
to  a  cause  so  just  in  itself  and  which  we  may  so  properly  call 
our  own,  every  countenance  and  support  in  our  power,  consis 
tently  with  the  laws  of  our  country. 

"4th.  Resolved  that  we  ought  to  resist  to  the  utmost  of  our 
power  all  attempts  to  alienate  our  affections  from  France,  and 
detach  us  from  her  alliance  and  to  connect  us  more  intimately 
with  Great  Britain,  that  all  persons  who,  directly  or  indirectly, 
promote  this  unnatural  succession  ought  to  be  considered  by 
every  free  American  as  enemies  to  republicanism  and  their  coun 
try. 

"6th.  Resolved  that  the  conduct  of  the  maritime  powers  at 
war  with  the  French  republic  in  prohibiting  the  exportation  of 
our  produce  to  France  and  her  colonies,  in  seizing  our  vessels 
laden  with  provisions  for  that  country  is  a  daring  infringement 
of  the  established  law  of  nations  and  ought  to  be  resented  with  a 
proper  spirit. 

"7th.  Resolved  that  we  conceive  we  ought  in  the  same 
manner  to  resent  the  outrageous  conduct  of  Great  Britain  in  im 
pressing  our  seamen,  in  seizing  our  vessels  on  the  high  seas  and 
detaining  them  in  their  ports  on  the  most  frivolous  pretenses,  in 
stirring  up  against  us  the  savage  nations  of  Africa  and  America 
and  in  short,  in  carrying  on  against  this  country  a  covert  and  in 
sidious  warfare  which  evinces  her  fear  of  our  power  at  the  same 
time  that  it  can  leave  us  no  doubt  of  her  hatred  and  enmity. 

"9th.  Resolved.  .  .  that  the  proposition  she  [France] 
has  lately  made  of  entering  into  a  new  commercial  treaty  with  us 
on  a  broad  and  liberal  basis  and  placing  us  upon  the  same  footing 
with  her  own  citizens  at  home  and  in  her  colonies,  is  an  additional 
proof  of  the  warm  attachment  of  the  people  of  France  for  their 
American  brethren,  that  such  a  Treaty  cannot  but  prove  highly 
beneficial  to  this  country  in  securing  to  it  in  the  French  colonies, 
rich  and  abundant  sources  of  trade  and  a  constant  and  profitable 
market  for  our  staple  commodities. 

"llth.     Resolved  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Society  that 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  69 

the  agents  of  foreign  powers  acting  in  the  name  and  under  the 
responsibility  of  the  governments  by  whom  they  are  delegated, 
are  responsible  only  to  their  own  sovereigns  for  their  official  con 
duct  in  the  countries  to  which  they  may  be  sent.  Impressed  with 
this  political  truth,  we  find  ourselves  called  upon  highly  to  repro 
bate  all  attempts  that  have  been  made  and  may  be  made  by 
spreading  false  and  calumnious  reports,  by  indecent  strictures 
and  newspaper  publications  and  by  other  as  unwarrantable  means 
to  traduce  and  villify  a  foreign  Minister,  to  excite  suspicion 
against  him  in  the  minds  of  the  people  and  a  jealousy  in  their 
public  officers,  with  a  view  to  render  his  cause  unpopular  and  his 
situation  amongst  us  irksome  and  disagreeable  and  we  cannot 
but  see  in  such  attempts,  the  effects  of  a  foreign  influence  acting 
in  opposition  to  the  Nation  whom  that  Minister  represents  and 
endeavoring  to  make  the  good  people  of  the  United  States  sub 
servient  to  such  hostile  designs. 

"13th.  Resolved  that  the  firm  tone  of  our  executive  in  de 
manding  from  the  British  government  a  fulfillment  of  the  treaty 
of  peace  deserves  the  approbation  of  every  citizen  who  is  inter 
ested  in  the  dignity,  independence  and  welfare  of  our  country."7 

A  committee,  consisting  of  Benjamin  F.  Bache,  Peter  S. 
Duponceau,  and  Michael  Leib,  was  appointed  to  draft  a  set  of 
resolutions  expressing  the  views  of  the  Society  relative  to  the 
"present  crisis  of  our  National  affairs."  These  resolutions,  after 
amendment,  were  finally  adopted,  April  10,  1794,  in  the  following 
form : 

"1.  Resolved,  as  the  opinion  of  this  society,  that  unequiv 
ocal  evidence  is  now  obtained  of  the  liberticide  intention  of  Great 
Britain,  she  having  declared  it  through  one  of  her  satellites  even 
to  savages ;  that  the  success  of  Freedom  against  Tyranny,  the 
triumphs  of  our  magnanimous  French  brethren  over  .slaves,  have 
been  the  means  of  once  more  guaranteeing  the  Independence  of 
this  country;  that  their  glorious  example  ought  to  animate  us  to 
every  exertion  to  raise  our  prostrate  character  and  every  tie  of 


7Mss.   Minutes,  Democratic  Society,   1793-1794    (Pennsylvania  Histori 
cal  Society  Library,  Philadelphia),  pp.  31-37. 


70  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

gratitude  and  interest  should  lead  us  to  cement  our  connection 
with  that  Great  Republic. 

"2.  Resolved  that  the  Proclamation  of  Neutrality  by  our  Ex 
ecutive,  although  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  it  the  offspring 
of  the  best  motives,  is  not  only  a  questionable  constitutional  act 
but  has  eventually  proved  impolitic  and  being  falsely  construed 
by  Great  Britain  as  a  manifestation  of  a  pusillanimous  disposi 
tion  on  our  part,  serves  to  explain  the  aggressions  of  that  na 
tion,  and  that  experience  urges  us  now  to  abandon  a  line  of  con 
duct  which  has  only  fed  the  pride  and  provoked  the  insults  of 
our  unprincipled  and  implacable  enemy. 

"4.  Resolved  that  Great  Britain  has  been  waging  war  upon 
us  in  the  most  insidious  and  cowardly  manner.  .  .  Insidious, 
inasmuch  as  her  orders  to  seize  and  condemn  our  property  float 
ing  on  the  high  seas  under  the  sanction  of  the  Law  of  Nations 
were  transmitted  directly  and  expeditiously  to  her  commissioned, 
pirates  and  at  the  same  time  carefully  kept  out  of  those  channels 
of  information  by  which  we  could  have  received  intelligence  of 
their  unwarrantable  intentions — insidious,  inasmuch  as  they  were 
so  worded  as  to  conceal  their  intentions  by  a  studied  ambiguity 
which  should  give  their  friends  among  us  an  opportunity,  by 
disputing  their  import,  to  keep  the  public  mind  the  longer  in  sus 
pense.  Cowardly,  inasmuch  as  their  wanton  depredations  have 
been  exercised  on  property  protected  only  by  the  Law  of  Na 
tions.  .  .  and  at  a  time  when  our  government  was  lulled  into 
security  by  false  assurances  of  friendship. 

"6.  Resolved.  .  .  .  that  the  moment  of  national  embar 
rassment  and  decline  is  the  most  opportune  to  demand  a  fulfill 
ment  of  national  engagements  and  that  this  being  the  present 
state  of  Great  Britain,  it  would  be  a  dereliction  of  the  means 
which  Providence  has  put  into  our  hands,  not  to  avail  ourselves 
of  the  present  crisis  to  insist  on  a  surrender  of  the  western  posts 
and  a  full  indemnification  for  all  the  injuries  which  the  United 
States  have  sustained  from 'her. 

"8.  Resolved  that  the  progress  of  British  influence  in  the 
United  States  has  endangered  our  happiness  and  independence. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  71 

that  it  has  operated  to  make  us  tributary  to  Great  Britain  and  to 
engender  systems  and  corruptions  baneful  to  Liberty. 

"9.  Resolved.  .  .  .  that  we  entertain  the  most  flattering 
anticipation  that  the  Sister  Republics  of  America  and  France  will 
have  an  inseparable  relation  and  attachment — that  they  will  ever 
be  the  temple  of  Liberty,  the  residence  of  the  Arts,  Sciences, 
Liberality  and  Humanity,  'an  Hercules  in  the  extermination  of 
every  monster  of  unlawful  domination.'  "8 

On  February  20,  1794,  the  German  Republican  Society,9  in  a 
communication  to  the  Democratic  Society  setting  forth  the  need 
and  advisability  of  a  close  affiliation  between  the  two  bodies 
whose  ideals  and  objects  were  so  similar,  enclosed  the  following 
resolution  for  its  concurrence : 

"Resolved  that  as  republicans  and  friends  to  universal  liberty, 
that  this  society  views  with  concern,  the  attempts  which  are 
making  to  depress  the  French  character  in  this  country.  That 
when  we  see  men  insidiously  endeavoring  to  produce  an  abhor 
rence  of  a  principle  because  the  actors  have  gone  to  imagined 
excess ;  that  when  we  see  men  who,  under  the  guise  of  patriotism, 
enter  into  a  defence,  nay  a  panegyric  upon  the  perfidious,  insolent 
and  tyrannical  conduct  of  Great  Britain,  every  freeman  ought  to 
express  his  abhorrence  of  such  dark  policy  and  declare  that  the 
true  and  unbiased  American  has  different  sympathies."10 

The  Democratic  Society  replied  on  March  6,  that  it  heartily 
concurred  in  these  resolutions  and  would  gladly  co-operate  in  any 
measures  that  would  promote  the  public  welfare.11 

A  Civic  Feast  was  held  May  1,  1794,  to  celebrate  the  victories 
of  the  democrats  of  France  over  the  royalists  and  aristocrats. 
The  German  Republican  Society  was  invited  to  take  part  in  the 
festivities.  About  800  people  assembled  at  the  country  residence 
of  one  of  the  members  of  the  Democratic  Society  where  the  cele- 


8  Ibid.,  pp.  68-74. 

"This  was  an  organization  of  liberal  Pennsylvania  Germans.  The 
writer  has  sought  in  vain  for  further  information  than  that  contained  in 
the  text  concerning  the  Society. 

10  American  Daily  Advertiser,  March  15,  1794. 

11  Ibid. 


72  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

bration  was  held.  Among  those  who  attended  were  Governor 
Mifflin  of  Pennsylvania,12  the  French  Minister,  Fauchet,  various 
officers  and  citizens  of  the  French  Republic  and  Federal  and 
State  officials.  The  flags  of  the  two  republics  decorated  the  seat 
of  festivity.  At  the  celebration  the  following  toasts  were  drunk : 

"1.  The  Republic  of  France;  one  and  indivisible.  May  her 
triumphs  multiply  until  every  day  in  the  year  be  rendered  a  fes 
tival  in  the  calendar  of  Liberty  and  a  fast  in  the  calendar  of 
courts. 

"2.  The  People  of  the  United  States.  May  each  revolving 
year  increase  their  detestation  of  every  species  of  tyranny  and 
their  vigilance  to  secure  the  glorious  inheritance  acquired  by  their 
Revolution. 

"3.  The  Alliance  between  the  Sister  Republics  of  the  United 
States  and  France.  May  their  union  be  as  incorporate  as  light 
and  heat  and  their  friendship  as  lasting  as  time. 

"4.  The  Great  family  of  Mankind.  May  the  distinction  of 
nation  and  of  language  be  lost  in  the  association  of  freedom  and 
of  friendship  till  the  inhabitants  of  the  various  sections  of  the 
Globe  shall  be  distinguished  only  by  their  virtues  and  talents. 

"5.  The  extinction  of  Monarchy.  May  the  next  generation 
know  kings  only  by  the  page  of  history  and  wonder  that  such 
monsters  were  ever  permitted  to  exist." 

The  following    extemporaneous  toasts  were  also  offered : 

"1.  May  every  free  nation  consider  a  public  debt  as  a  public 
curse,  and  may  the  man  who  would  assert  a  contrary  opinion  be 
considered  as  an  enemy  to  his  country. 

"2.  The  dispersed  friends  of  Liberty  throughout  the  world. 
May  France  be  the  rallying  point  where  they  may  collect  their 
scattered  forces  and  whence  they  may  sally  forth  to  the  destruc 
tion  of  all  the  tyrants  of  the  earth."13 

The   most   powerful    defence   of   the   neutrality   programme 


"McMaster  is  of  the  opinion  that  "the  real  object  of  the  Society  .  .  . 
was  to  control  the  politics  of  Pennsylvania  and  to  re-elect  Governor 
Mifflin."  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,  vol.  II,  p.  109. 

13  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  May  7,  1794. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  73 

came  from  the  pen  of  Hamilton.  His  eight  articles,  signed 
"Pacificus,"  which  appeared  in  the  Gazette  of  the  United  States 
in  the  summer  of  1793  were  also  published  in  pamphlet  form.14 
It  was  his  opinion  that  the  real  purpose  of  the  attacks  upon  the 
Neutrality  Proclamation  in  newspapers  and  pamphlets  was  not  to 
bring  about  a  free  discussion  of  an  important  public  measure,  but 
to  weaken  the  confidence  of  the  people  in  their  executive  and 
thus  prepare  the  way  for  a  successful  opposition  to  the  govern 
ment.15 

The  objections  to  the  Neutrality  Proclamation,  according  to 
Hamilton,  could  be  classified  under  four  headings :  ( 1 )  That 
the  President  had  not  the  authority  to  issue  the  proclamation. 
(2)  That  it  was  contrary  to  our  treaties  with  France.  (3)  That 
it  was  contrary  to  the  feeling  of  gratitude  we  should  have 
towards  the  French  for  the  aid  rendered  us  by  that  nation  at  the 
time  of  the  American  Revolution.  (4)  That  it  was  untimely  and 
unnecessary.  And  these  objections  he  proceeds  to  answer. 

In  order  to  judge  the  first  of  these  objections  intelligently,  we 
must  consider  just  what  is  the  nature  and  purpose  of  a  proclama 
tion  of  neutrality.  The  true  nature  and  design  of  such  an  act  is 
to  make  it  known  to  the  powers  at  war  and  to  the  citizens  of  the 
country  issuing  the  proclamation,  that  that  country  is  at  peace 
with  the  belligerent  powers  and  not  obligated  by  any  treaties 
to  become  a  party  to  the  war  as  the  ally  of  either  side,  and  that 
conduct  must  be  observed  conformable  to  the  above  situation  and 
strict  neutrality  maintained  towards  both  sides.  This  and  this 
only  is  the  meaning  of  a  Neutrality  Proclamation.  "It  does  not 
imply  that  the  nation  which  makes  the  declaration  will  forbear 
to  perform  to  any  of  the  warring  powers,  any  stipulations  in 
treaties  which  can  be  performed  without  rendering  it  an  associate 
or  party  in  the  war.  It  therefore  does  not  imply  in  our  case,  that 
the  United  States  will  not  make  those  distinctions  between  the 
present  belligerent  powers  which  are  stipulated  in  the  7th  and 
22nd  articles  of  our  treaty  with  France,  because  those  distinctions 


14  See  Hamilton's  Works,  vol.  IV,  pp.  432-489. 
16  Gazette  of  the  United  States,  June  29,  1793. 


74  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

are  not  incompatible  with  a  state  of  neutrality;  they  will  in  no 
shape  render  the  United  States  an  associate  or  party  in  the  war. 
This  must  be  evident,  when  it  is  considered  that  even  to  furn 
ish  determinate  succours  of  a  certain  number  of  ships  or  troops 
to  a  power  at  war,  in  consequence  of  antecedent  treaties  having 
no  particular  reference  to  the  existing  war,  is  not  inconsistent 
with  neutrality;  a  position  well  established  by  the  doctrines  of 
writers  and  the  practice  of  nations.  But  no  special  aids,  suc 
cours  or  favors  having  relation  to  war,  not  positively  and  pre 
cisely  stipulated  by  some  treaty  of  the  above  description,  can  be 
afforded  to  either  party,  without  a  breach  of  neutrality." 

This  being  the  meaning  of  a  proclamation  of  neutrality,  did 
the  President  overstep  the  bounds  of  his  constitutional  authority 
in  issuing  it?  It  is  an  undisputed  fact  that  the  management  of 
the  foreign  affairs  of  this  country  is  vested  in  the  government  of 
the  United  States  and  that  a  proclamation  of  neutrality  in  the 
case  of  a  nation  which  is  at  liberty  to  keep  out  of  war  and  wishes 
to  do  so,  is  a  very  usual  and  proper  measure.  "Its  main  object 
and  effect  are  to  prevent  the  nation  being  immediately  respon 
sible  for  acts  done  by  its  citizens  without  the  privity  or  con 
nivance  of  the  government,  in  contravention  of  the  principles  of 
neutrality." 

The  next  question  is,  what  department  of  the  government 
is  the  suitable  one  to  act  in  case  the  "engagements  of  the  nation 
permit  and  its  interests  require  such  a  declaration."  Obviously 
it  must  belong  to  the  executive.  "The  legislative  department  is 
not  the  organ  of  intercourse  between  the  United  States  and  for 
eign  nations.  It  is  charged  neither  with  making  nor  interpreting 
treaties.  .  .  .  still  less  is  it  charged  with  enforcing  the  exe 
cution  and  observance  of  those  obligations  and  those  duties." 
It  is  equally  apparent  that  the  act  does  not  lie  within  the  juris 
diction  of  the  judiciary  department.  "The  province  of  that  de 
partment  is  to  decide  litigations  in  particular  cases.  It  is  indeed 
charged  with  the  interpretation  of  treaties  but  it  exercises  this 
function  only  in  the  litigated  cases."  It  must  therefore  rest  with 
the  executive  to  exercise  this  function  if  the  occasion  arises. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  75 

"It  appears  to  be  connected  with  that  department  in  its  various 
capacities — as  the  organ  of  intercourse  between  this  nation  and 
foreign  nations,  as  the  interpreter  of  the  national  treaties  in 
those  cases  in  which  the  judiciary  is  not  competent,  that  is  in  the 
cases  between  government  and  government,  as  the  power  which 
is  charged  with  the  execution  of  the  laws,  of  which  treaties  form 
a  part,  as  that  power  which  is  charged  \vith  the  command  and 
application  of  the  public  force." 

The  constitution  provides  that  ''the  executive  power  shall  be 
vested  in  a  President  of  the  United  States"  with  three  exceptions. 
The  Senate  shall  participate  in  the  appointment  of  officers  and  the 
making  of  treaties,  and  the  right  to  "declare  war  and  grant  let 
ters  of  marque  and  reprisal"  shall  be  vested  in  the  legislature. 
Considering  that,  for  reasons  already  given,  the  issuing  of  a 
proclamation  of  neutrality  is  an  executive  act  and  since  the  gen 
eral  executive  power  of  the  Union  is  vested  in  the  President,  the 
conclusion  is  that  he  has  acted  within  his  constitutional  authority 
in  the  step  he  has  taken.  "The  President  is  censured  for  having 
declared  the  United  States  to  be  in  a  state  of  peace  and  neu 
trality  with  regard  to  the  powers  at  war ;  because  the  right  of 
changing  that  state  and  declaring  a  state  of  war  belongs  to  the 
legislature."  But  as  the  participation  of  the  Senate  in  the  mak 
ing  of  treaties  and  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  declare  war  are 
exceptions  to  the  general  principle  that  the  executive  authority 
is  vested  in  the  President,  they  should  be  strictly  interpreted  and 
not  be  extended  any  further  than  necessary  for  their  execution. 

"While,  therefore,  the  legislature  can  alone  declare  war,  can 
alone  actually  transfer  the  nation  from  a  state  of  peace  to  a  state 
of  war,  it  belongs  to  the  executive  power  to  do  whatever  else  the 
laws  of  nations,  co-operating  with  the  treaties  of  the  country, 
enjoin  in  the  intercourse  of  the  United  States  with  foreign 
powers.  In  this  distribution  of  powers,  the  wisdom  of  our  con 
stitution  is  manifest.  It  is  the  province  and  duty  of  the  executive 
to  preserve  to  the  nation  the  blessings  of  peace.  The  legislature 
alone  can  interrupt  those  blessings  by  placing  the  nation  in  a 
state  of  war." 


76  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

That  clause  in  the  constitution  which  instructs  the  President 
to  "take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed"  gives  him 
competent  authority  to  issue  a  proclamation  of  neutrality.  The 
President  is  the  constitutional  executor  of  the  laws.  Treaties 
and  the  laws  of  nations  form  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  land.  He 
who  is  to  execute  the  laws  must  first  judge  for  himself  of  their 
meaning.  It  rested  with  the  President  to  judge  whether  there 
was  anything  in  the  laws  of  nations  or  our  treaties  incompatible 
with  neutrality.  "Having  judged  that  there  was  not,  he  had  a 
right  and,  if  in  his  opinion  the  interests  of  the  nation  required  it, 
it  was  his  duty  as  executor  of  the  laws  to  proclaim  the  neutrality 
of  the  nation,  to  exhort  all  persons  to  observe  it  and  to  warn  them 
of  the  penalties  which  would  attend  its  non-observance." 

The  proclamation  has  been  represented  by  some  as  a  newly 
enacted  law.  This  is  incorrect.  It  only  makes  known  a  fact  re 
garding  the  existing  state  of  the  nation,  instructs  the  citizens 
what  laws  previously  established  demand  of  them  and  warns 
them  of  the  penalties  for  violation. 

In  another  article16  Hamilton  discusses  the  assertion  so  fre 
quently  made  by  the  friends  of  France  that  a  sense  of  gratitude 
if  nothing  else  should  urge  us  to  help  her.  This  he  denies.  As 
a  result  of  the  war  between  England  and  France  which  ended  in 
1763,  France  suffered  very  severe  losses  and  humiliating  defeats. 
Her  only  desire  from  that  time  on  was  to  destroy  the  ascendancy 
which  England  had  won  in  the  affairs  of  Europe  and  repair  the 
wounds  inflicted  upon  her  pride.  The  American  Revolution  of 
fered  the  opportunity  to  fulfill  that  desire.  The  possibilities  of 
that  situation  early  attracted  the  cautious  notice  of  France.  "As 
far  as  countenance  and  aid  may  be  presumed  to  have  been  given 
prior  to  the  epoch  of  the  acknowledgement  of  our  independence, 
it  will  be  no  unkind  derogation  to  assert  that  they  were  marked 
neither  with  liberality  nor  with  vigour,  that  they  wore  the  ap 
pearance  rather  of  a  desire  to  keep  alive  disturbances,  which 
would  embarrass  a  rival  power,  than  of  a  serious  design  to  as- 


"Ibid.,  July  13,  1793. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  77 

sist  a  revolution  or  a  serious  expectation  that  it  would  be  ef 
fected."  The  victory  at  Saratoga,  which  was  the  turning  point 
of  the  war  and  which  demonstrated  our  ability  to  carry  to  a  suc 
cessful  issue  our  struggle  for  independence,  produced  the  treaties 
of  alliance  and  commerce.  "It  is  impossible  to  see  in  all  this 
anything  more  than  the  conduct  of  a  rival  nation  embracing  a 
most  promising  opportunity  to  repress  the  pride  and  diminish 
the  dangerous  power  of  its  rival ;  by  seconding  a  successful  resis 
tance  to  its  authority  and  by  lopping  off  a  valuable  portion  of 
its  dominions.  The  dismemberment  of  this  country  from  Great 
Britain  was  an  obvious  and  a  very  important  interest  of  France. 
It  cannot  be  doubted  that  it  was  the  determining  motive  and  an 
adequate  compensation  for  the  assistance  afforded  us.  ... 
Aid  and  co-operation,  founded  upon  a  great  interest,  pursued  and 
obtained  by  the  party  affording  them,  is  not  a  proper  stock  upon 
which  to  engraft  that  enthusiastic  gratitude,  which  is  claimed 
from  us  by  those  who  love  France  more  than  the  United 
States." 

While  neither  the  motives  which  prompted  France  to  give  us 
aid  nor  the  amount  of  this  aid  can  be  considered  sufficient 
grounds  for  the  great  gratitude  which  so  many  declare  we  should 
feel  for  that  country,  yet  we  must  admit  that  in  the  manner  in 
which  the  assistance  was  given  there  is  ample  cause  for  our 
esteem  and  friendship.  France  did  not  try  to  take  advantage 
of  our  difficult  situation  to  force  from  us  any  humiliating  con 
cessions  or  impose  any  hard  terms  as  the  price  for  her  aid. 
While  this  course  of  procedure  was  dictated  by  policy  alone,  still 
it  was  an  honorable  and  generous  one  and  is  worthy  of  our 
deepest  gratitude. 

The  question  has  arisen,  to  whom  do  we  owe  our  gratitude, 
to  the  unfortunate  French  King  by  whom  the  assistance  was 
given  or  to  the  nation  whose  agent  he  was  ?  The  arguments  sup 
porting  the  latter  are  as  follows :  Louis  XVI  was  only  the  con 
stitutional  agent  of  the  French  people.  He  acted  in  their  behalf 
and  it  was  with  "their  money  and  their  blood  he  supported  our 


78  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

cause.  Tis  to  them,  therefore,  not  to  him,  that  our  obligations 
are  due." 

This  reasoning,  Hamilton  characterizes  as  "ingenious  but  not 
founded  in  nature  or  fact."  To  be  sure  the  King  was  merely 
the  constitutional  agent  of  the  nation  but  at  the  time  he  had 
the  sole  power  of  managing  its  affairs.  It  rested  with  him  to 
assist  us  or  not,  without  consulting  the  nation,  and  he  did  help 
us  without  such  consultation.  "His  will  alone  was  active,  that 
of  the  nation  passive.  If  there  was  any  kindness  in  the  decision 
demanding  a  return  of  kindness  from  us,  it  was  the  kindness  of 
Louis  XVI."  The  individual  good  wishes  of  the  citizens  of 
France  cannot  be  the  basis  for  national  gratitude  on  our  part  as 
the  French  people  were  not  responsible  for  the  services  rendered 
us  as  a  nation.  "They  can  only  call  for  a  reciprocation  of  good 
wishes.  They  cannot  form  the  basis  of  public  obligations."17 

It  must  be  admitted  that  the  French  people  took  a  keen  inter 
est  in  the  American  cause,  but  who  can  say  how  much  of  it  was 
due  to  antipathy  towards  England  and  how  much  to  their  sym 
pathy  for  our  aspirations?  "It  is  certain  that  the  love  of  liberty 
was  not  a  national  sentiment  in  France,  when  a  zeal  for  our  cause 
first  appeared  among  that  people.  There  is  reason  to  believe, 
too,  that  the  attachment  to  our  cause,  which  ultimately  became 
very  extensive,  if  not  general,  did  not  originate  with  the  mass  of 
the  French  people.  It  began  with  the  circle  more  immediately 
connected  with  the  Government  and  was  thence  diffused  through 
the  nation." 

Furthermore,  when  urging  the  friendly  disposition  of  the 
French  people  towards  our  cause  as  a  reason  for  our  gratitude 
towards  them,  we  must  not  forget  that  this  friendly  feeling  was 
not  confined  to  the  French.  It  was  shared  by  the  people  of  the 
United  Provinces  who  gave  us  valuable  pecuniary  aid  and  finally 
were  drawn  into  the  war  upon  our  side.  Here  it  is  worthy  of 
note  that  the  movement  began  with  the  community  and  not  with 
the  government,  as  in  France,  the  government  finally  being  im- 


11  Ibid.,  July  17,  1793. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  79 

plicated  through  the  pressure  of  public  opinion.  Our  cause  had 
its  friends  in  other  countries,  even  in  those  with  which  we  were 
at  war.  "It  may  be  said  to  have  been  a  popular  cause  among 
mankind,  conciliating  the  countenances  of  Princes  and  the  af 
fection  of  nations." 

"The  disposition  of  the  individual  citizens  of  France  can 
therefore  in  no  sense  be  urged  as  constituting  a  peculiar  claim  to 
our  gratitude.  As  far  as  there  is  foundation  for  it,  it  must  be 
referred  to  the  services  rendered  to  us  and  in  the  first  instance 
to  the  unfortunate  monarch  that  rendered  them.  This  is  the  con 
clusion  of  nature  and  reason."18 

Jefferson  became  so  alarmed  at  the  great  influence  which  the 
letters  of  "Pacificus"  were  exerting  that  he  wrote  to  Madison 
on  July  7,  1793,  as  follows :  "Nobody  answers  him  and  his  doc 
trines  will  therefore  be  taken  for  confessed.  For  God's  sake,  my 
dear  Sir,  take  up  your  pen,  select  the  most  striking  heresies  and 
cut  him  to  pieces  in  the  face  of  the  public.  There  is  nobody 
else,  who  can  and  will  enter  the  lists  against  him."19  Acting 
upon  Jefferson's  suggestion,  Madison  wrote  five  letters  under 
the  name  of  "Helvidius,"  which  appeared  first  in  the  Gazette 
of  the  United  States  (August  24  to  September  18),  but  were 
later  published  as  a  pamphlet.20  These  letters  attracted  much 
attention  as  everyone  knew  who  the  real  author  was.  Madison's 
arguments  were  largely  directed  against  Hamilton's  first  letter 
which  stated  his  idea  of  the  powers  of  the  executive. 

The  merchants  and  traders  of  Philadelphia  were  very  de 
sirous  that  the  neutrality  of  the  country  should  be  strictly  ob 
served.  In  July,  1793,  they  held  a  large  meeting  at  the  Coffee 
House  to  consider  certain  actions  tending  toward  a  breach  of 
the  President's  proclamation.  In  the  course  of  the  discussion, 
proof  was  presented  that  the  Little  Sarah  had  been  armed  in 
Philadelphia  and  sent  out  against  the  powers  at  war  with  France. 


18  Ibid. 

19  Jefferson's  Writings,  vol.  VI,  p.  338. 

5  "Helvidius",   Letters  writ t ten  in  reply   to  "Pacificus"  on   the  Presi 
dent's  Proclamation  of  Neutrality.     Philadelphia,   1793. 


80  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

A  committee  was  appointed  to  call  upon  the  Governor  of  the 
state  and  the  heads  of  the  departments  in  the  federal  govern 
ment,  to  ascertain  what  steps  had  been  taken  to  check  "a  proce 
dure  so  alarming  to  the  interests  and  honor  of  the  United  States." 
Governor  Mifflin  assured  the  committee  that  everything  was  be 
ing  done  and  would  continue  to  be  done  to  secure  a  strict  ad 
herence  to  the  President's  proclamation.21 

The  policy  of  neutrality  was  supported  in  various  short  ar 
ticles,  letters,  and  editorials.  For  example,  an  anonymous  writer 
in  the  American  Daily  Advertiser,  for  January  6,  1794,  says : 
'There  can  be  little  doubt  in  the  mind  of  any  unprejudiced  cit 
izen  taking  into  consideration  recent  communications,  but  that 
the  United  States  would  at  this  moment  have  been  experiencing 
all  the  horrors  of  war,  had  not  the  Proclamation  of  Neutrality 
been  issued  at  the  crisis  at  which  it  was  promulgated."  "Henry," 
writing  in  the  same  journal,22  argues  that  while  credit  must  be 
given  to  the  wise  and  cautious  conduct  of  the  government  by 
which  we  were  "extricated  from  the  snares  that  French  emis 
saries  reinforced  by  anti-federal  faction  had  spread  for  our 
peace,  nevertheless  something  is  due  to  good  fortune.  The  en 
thusiasm  for  the  French  in  Philadelphia  and  in  some  other 
sea-ports  was  blind  and  violent  enough  to  have  hurried  our  coun 
try  into  the  war,  if  those  who  undertook  to  make  a  hack  of  our 
folly  had  not  overdriven  it.  They  hurried  even  those  who 
seemed  to  be  willing  to  run  head  foremost  into  the  war  quite  out 
of  breath.  Had  the  business  of  privateering  been  conducted  with 
more  skill  and  address,  our  people  would  have  been  engaged  in 
very  great  numbers  in  making  a  piratical  war  upon  England  and 
our  country  would  have  been  involved  in  it  beyond  the  power  of 
retreating.  Luckily,  however,  the  French  emissaries  made  a 
mistake  in  supposing  our  people  more  crazy  than  they  really  were 
and  in  consequence,  they  came  to  their  senses.  The  whole  coun 
try  cried  out  against  privateering — the  President  found  a  solid 
support  and  the  hopes  of  the  war-party  seemed  to  be  destroyed." 


21  Gazette  of  the  United  States,  July  10,  1793. 

22  January   17,    1794. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  81 

But,  because  Congress  has  approved  of  the  Proclamation  and 
other  measures  to  preserve  neutrality,  we  need  not  feel  perfectly 
easy  about  the  peace  of  America.  "The  danger  is  not  over. 
Our  citizens  are  not  to  be  led  into  the  pit  with  their  eyes  open; 
nevertheless  they  may  be  led  into  it.  New  schemes  are  to  be 
tried ;  the  project  is  now  to  trick  the  country  into  the  war."  "Hen 
ry"  believed  that  the  people  of  the  country  ought  to  be  neutral  in 
thought  as  well  as  in  action.  "Is  it  prudent,  manly  or  even  hon 
est,"  he  asks,  "after  the  declaration  of  an  impartial  neutrality  on 
our  part,  to  fill  every  newspaper  and  every  circle  of  company 
with  enthusiastic  professions  of  attachment  and  even  devoted- 
ness  to  the  French  cause,  accompanied  with  the  most  provoking 
expressions  of  scorn  and  hatred  of  the  English?  There  is  as 
much  true  dignity  for  a  neutral  nation  to  forbear  taking  a  side 

as  to  intermeddle  with  the  quarrel  of  others Such 

has  been  the  complexion  of  several  of  our  newspapers,  which  are 
not  only  a  disgrace  to  our  country  but  contribute  all  they  can  to 
involve  it  in  the  war." 

An  interesting  article  entitled  "Wholesome  Refreshment  for 
the  Memory"  appeared  in  Porcupine's  Gazette  on  April  7,  1797, 
four  years  after  Washington  issued  his  Proclamation  of  Neu 
trality.  The  writer  recalls  to  mind  the  violent  opposition  which 
the  proclamation  aroused  among  the  heated  advocates  of  war 
and  the  reprobation  cast  upon  the  President  by  "many  a  tedious 
essayist,  whose  projects  of  personal  aggrandizement  were  blasted 
by  a  measure  as  just  as  it  was  reasonable."  The  propriety  of 
the  proclamation  has  been  so  securely  established  and  its  con 
stitutionality  so  ably  defended  that  no  one  now  has  any  doubt  of 
it.  "That  it  was  our  duty  as  well  as  interest  to  be  neutral  has 
been  clearly  evinced  by  the  result,  we  have  enjoyed  the  fruits  of 
it  during  the  course  of  a  war  which  has  half  ruined  the  fairest 
portion  of  Europe,  and  the  sacrifices  we  have  sustained,  sacri 
fices  inseparable  from  a  state  of  neutrality,  have  been  much 
more  than  countervailed  by  the  advantages  drawn  from  our  situa 
tion." 


82  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

2.  The  Jay  Treaty 

The  Jay  Treaty,  designed  to  settle  the  long-standing  difficul 
ties  between  England  and  the  United  States,  was  signed  No 
vember  19,  1794,  and  was  submitted  by  President  Washington 
to  the  Senate  for  ratification  on  June  8,  1795.  An  appropriation 
of  money  being  involved,  the  House  of  Representatives,  also  had 
to  be  consulted.  The  opposition  in  both  houses  was  very  bitter, 
but  the  treaty  was  finally  ratified,  June  24,  1795 ;  and  the  legis 
lation  necessary  to  put  it  into  operation  was  passed  on  May  6, 
1796. 

Of  the  many  attacks  upon  the  treaty,  a  series  of  letters  by 
an  anonymous  writer  who  signed  himself  "Franklin,"  and  which 
appeared  in  the  Independent  Gazetteer ,23  were  perhaps  the  most 
outspoken  and  extravagant  in  their  criticisms.  They  called  forth 
an  extended  and  vigorous  reply  from  William  Cobbett  in  a 
pamphlet  entitled  A  Little  Plain  English.2*  The  "Letters  of 
Franklin,"  Cobbett  declared,  were  "a  string  of  philippics  against 
Great  Britain  and  the  Executive  of  the  United  States."  They 
did  not  form  a  regular  series  in  which  the  subject  was  treated  in 
continuation;  the  first  one  seemed  rather  to  be  "the  overflowings 
of  passion  bordering  on  insanity,  and  each  succeeding  one  the 
fruit  of  a  relapse."  And  of  the  author,  he  said :  "Far  be  it 
from  me  to  pretend  to  a  rivalship  with  this  fawning  mob  orator, 
and  I  would  not  for  the  world  make  one  convert  from  his  tat 
tered  flock;  unenvied  I  leave  him  to  the  plaudits  of  his  cajoled 
'fellow-citizens  and  the  fraternal  hugs  of  your  insidious  friends 
and  allies/  " 

"Franklin"  had  opposed  three  main  objections  to  the  Treaty : 
(1)  to  conclude  any  commercial  treaty  with  Great  Brit 
ain  was  "a  step  at  once  unnecessary,  impolitic,  dangerous  and  dis 
honorable ;"  (2)  the  terms  were  "disadvantageous,  humiliating, 


23  These  letters,   14  in  number,  appeared  between  the  dates   March   11 
and  June   10,   1795.     Several  letters   signed   "Philo   Franklin"   were  pub 
lished  at  this  time  in  the  same  paper,  in  support  of  the  position  taken  by 
"Franklin." 

24  Philadelphia,  1795. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  83 

and  disgraceful  to  the  United  States;"  and  (3)  even  if  the  terms 
had  been  satisfactory,  the  President  had  conducted  himself  in  a 
high-handed  manner  in  negotiating  the  treaty;  and  for  this  he 
should  be  impeached.  "Franklin"  had  even  gone  on  to  set  forth 
five  offences  which  in  his  belief  demanded  the  impeachment  of  the 
President :  ( 1 )  he  had  appointed  Jay  as  envoy  extraordinary, 
contrary  to  the  Constitution;  (2)  he  had  appointed  an  envoy 
extraordinary  on  this  occasion  contrary  to  the  judgment  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  and  of  the  Democratic  Society;  (3) 
he  had  failed  to  take  the  Senate  into  his  confidence  previous  to 
Jay's  departure  for  Europe ;  (4)  he  had  not  taken  the  public 
into  his  confidence;  and  (5)  he  had  avoided  a  new  treaty  with 
France  while  advocating  one  with  England. 

These  objections  Cobbett  proceeded  to  demolish  with  char 
acteristic  vigor.  To  "Franklin's"  assertion  that  commercial 
treaties  were  "an  artificial  means  to  gain  a  natural  end,"  he  re 
plied  that  he  would  allow  commercial  treaties  to  be  unneces 
sary  "when  the  scheme  of  opening  all  the  ports  in  the  world 
to  all  the  vessels  in  the  world"  had  been  put  in  execution  with 
success.  And  to  "Franklin's"  objection  to  a  treaty  with  England 
because  she  was  "famed  for  perfidy  and  double  dealing,"  he  did 
not  scruple  to  reply  that  this  was  all  the  more  reason  for  binding 
her  with  written  articles.  "Franklin"  had  advocated  a  treaty 
with  France.  But,  said  Cobbett,  "Your  commerce  with  France, 
even  in  the  fairest  days  of  her  prosperity,  never  amounted  to 
more  than  one-fifth  of  your  commerce  with  Great  Britain;" 
and,  moreover,  if,  as  "Franklin"  had  said,  France  was  "the  most 
magnanimous,  generous,  just,  honorable,  rich,  and  powerful  na 
tion  on  earth,"  what  was  the  use  of  a  treaty  to  bind  her?  "Frank 
lin"  had  declared  treaties  to  be  "impolitic"  because  they  lead  to 
war.  But  Cobbett  thought  it  "rather  surprising  to  hear  'Franklin' 
object  to  them  on  that  account,"  when  one-third  of  his  argument 
was  taken  up  with  invectives  against  the  President  for  not  con 
cluding  a  treaty  with  France,  and  the  direct  object  of  which 
was  to  draw  the  United  States  into  the  European  war  on  the  side 
of  France.  "Franklin"  had  argued  that  to  conclude  a  treaty  of 


84  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

commerce  with  Great  Britain  was  "dangerous,"  because  it  would 
be  forming  "a  connection  with  a  monarch,"  and  the  introduction 
of  "the  fashions,  forms  and  precedents  of  monarchical  govern 
ment"  had  ever  accelerated  the  destruction  of  republics.  But, 
said  Cobbett,  "can  the  people  who  have  been  so  careful  in  pre 
venting  their  future  rulers  from  depriving  them  of  the  benefit  of 
the  laws  of  England,  who  look  upon  the  being  governed  by  those 
laws  as  the  most  inestimable  of  their  rights,  be  afraid  of  intro 
ducing  among  them  the  fashions,  forms  and  precedents  of  Eng 
land?25  And  if,  as  "Franklin"  had  said,  the  United  States 
should  make  no  treaties  with  any  nation  whose  customs  and 
forms  were  different  from  its  own,  that  was  all  the  more  reason 
why  an  alliance  should  be  made  with  England  rather  than  with 
France. 

"Franklin"  had  opined  that  England  planned  to  conquer  the 
United  States,  and  desired  a  treaty  to  secure  thereby  a  footing 
in  this  country,  in  order  to  carry  through  her  ambitious  schemes ; 
but  the  surest  of  all  guarantees  that  Great  Britain  would  never  at 
tempt  anything  against  American  independence  was  in  fact  her 
own  interest.  And  as  to  "Franklin's"  forebodings  that  a  treaty 
made  with  England,  the  inveterate  enemy  of  France,  would  in 
evitably  arouse  the  latter's  just  and  dangerous  resentment,  Cob 
bett  could  only  say  that  if  the  United  States  entertained  such 
fears  they  were  "no  more  than  mere  colonies  of  France,"  and 
their  boasted  revolution  was  "no  more  than  a  change  of  mas 
ters."  "Franklin"  had  asserted  that  it  was  "dishonorable"  even 
to  treat  with  England;  her  king  was  "a  tyrant  that  had  invaded 
our  territory  and  carried  on  war  against  us."  But  here  Cobbett 
thought  he  had  made  a  "small  mistake" :  "at  the  time  the  King 
of  England  invaded  'your'  territory,  it  was  his  territory  and  you 
his  'loving  subjects/  at  least  you  all  declared  so."  But  much 
more  pertinently  he  inquired  how  long  it  had  been  "a  principle 
in  politics  that  a  nation  who  has  done  an  injury  to  another  is 


25  Cobbett  here  refers  to  the  Declaration  of  Rights  incorporated  in    the 
Constitution  of   Pennsylvania. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  85 

never  after  to  be  treated  on  a  friendly  footing."  Was  this  a 
maxim,  he  inquired,  of  any  other  state  in  the  world? 

Cobbett  then  turned  to  "Franklin's"  specific  objection  to  the 
terms  of  the  treaty,  viz. :  that  the  western  posts  had  been  made 
the  price  of  a  commercial  treaty,  that  no  provision  had  been 
made  for  indemnity  to  merchants,  that  the  French  had  been  sac 
rificed  to  the  British,  and  that  all  the  essential  interests  of  the 
United  States  had  been  abandoned.  These  charges  Cobbett 
flatly  declared  to  be  untrue.  "Franklin"  had  published  his  let 
ters  before  the  contents  of  the  Jay  Treaty  had  been  made  public; 
and  such  premature  objections  directed  at  what  were  only  sup 
posed  to  be  the  terms  of  the  treaty  could  of  necessity  not  be 
very  serious. 

Cobbett  got  on  rather  firmer  ground  when  he  came  to  deal 
with  "Franklin's"  argument  in  support  of  the  extraordinary  de 
mand  for  the  impeachment  of  the  President.  The  latter  had 
contended  that  the  appointment  of  Chief  Justice  Jay  as  an  en 
voy  extraordinary  was  a  violation  of  the  constitution,  making  the 
will  of  the  executive  superior  to  the  will  of  the  people ;  that 
the  appointee  would  combine  in  a  single  person,  both  legislative 
and  judicial  functions ;  and  that  it  was  the  duty  of  a  chief  jus 
tice  to  expound  and  apply  treaties,  not  to  negotiate  them.  To 
these  specious  arguments  Cobbett  replied  by  pointing  out  that 
there  was  no  article  in  the  constitution  forbidding  a  chief  justice 
from  being  sent  as  an  envoy  extraordinary,  that  the  drawing  up 
of  a  treaty  was  not  a  legislative  act,  and  that  it  obviously  did. 
not  make  a  person  less  capable  of  expounding  a  law  to  have 
taken  part  in  framing  it.  And  as  for  "Franklin's"  claim  that  the 
appointment  of  Jay  had  been  made  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of 
a  respectable  minority  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  under 
the  constitution  that  was  purely  a  matter  which  concerned  the 
President  and  the  Senate. 

"Franklin's"  amazing  statement  that  the  President  should  be 
impeached  because  the  appointment  of  Jay  was  contrary  to  the 
wishes  of  the  Democratic  Society  aroused  Cobbett  to  a  sar 
castic  outburst  to  which  it  is  impossible  to  do  justice  except  by 


86  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

quoting  in  extenso :  "How  it  came  into  the  head  of  'Franklin/  " 
he  declared,  "to  introduce  his  club  on  this  occasion,  it  is  not 
easy  to  imagine.  He  does  not  pretend,  I  hope,  that  there  is  some 
thing  unconstitutional  here  also?  The  constitution  says  that  the 
President  shall  take  the  advice  of  the  Senate  but  it  is  totally 
silent  with  respect  to  the  Democratic  Society  of  Pennsylvania. 
Mighty  'alarming'  indeed  that  the  President  should  not  consult 
this  club  of  butchers,  tinkers,  broken  huksters  and  transatlantic 
traitors !  Had  he  wanted  a  fellow  to  fell  an  ox  or  mend  a  kettle, 
to  bilk  his  creditors  or  blow  up  an  insurrection,  he  would  have 
done  well  to  address  himself  to  the  Democratic  Society  of  Penn 
sylvania  for  advice ;  but  to  ask  their  advice  in  the  appointment 
of  an  Envoy  Extraordinary  would  have  been  as  preposterous 
as  consulting  the  devil  in  the  choice  of  a  minister  of  the  Gospel." 
As  for  the  President's  failure  to  take  the  Senate  into  his  con 
fidence,  that  body  did  not  know  of  the  errand  and  the  person  to 
be  sent.  To  be  sure,  it  was  not  told  of  the  particular  objects  to 
be  accomplished ;  but  this  was  not  necessary,  either  from  a  "con 
stitutional  or  prudential  point  of  view."  The  power  of  the  Sen 
ate  extended  only  to  the  accepting  or  rejecting  the  treaties  ne 
gotiated  by  the  President.  The  Senate  should  be  consulted  in 
the  making  of  treaties,  but  not  in  opening  negotiations ;  and 
Franklin's  interpretation  of  the  constitution  as  meaning  that  no 
negotiations  for  a  treaty  could  be  entered  into  without  the  ad 
vice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  was  a  strained  and  impossible 
one.  And  as  for  "Franklin's"  conviction  that  "republics  should 
have  no  secrets,"  and  his  complaint  that  the  President  had  failed 
to  take  the  public  into  his  confidence,  Cobbett  replied  that  if  the 
people  had  no  right  to  prevent  a  treaty  going  into  effect,  they 
could  gain  no  possible  advantage  from  having  it  communicated 
to  them  previous  to  its  ratification.  "What  satisfaction  could 
they  derive,"  he  asked,  "from  being  tantalized  with  a  view  of 
dangers  that  they  could  not  avoid?"  And  finally,  "Franklin's" 
demand  that  the  President  be  impeached  because  he  had  refused 
a  French  treaty  while  eagerly  pursuing  one  with  England  was 
almost  too  trivial  to  merit  consideration ;  for  the  constitution 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  87 

clearly  left  the  treaty-making  power  in  the  hands  of  the  Presi 
dent.  He  might  make  or  avoid  treaties  according  to  his  own 
judgment.  And  moreover,  the  object  of  France  was  to  plunge 
the  United  States  into  war.  There  was  no  likeness  whatever 
between  the  English  treaty  and  the  one  proposed  by  Genet. 

Not  only  did  the  Jay  Treaty  encounter  bitter  criticism  in  the 
public  press ;  it  also  aroused  such  hostility  as  to  lead  to  a  public 
demonstration.  On  July  25,  1795,  a  large  mass-meeting  of  the 
citizens  of  Philadelphia  was  held  in  the  State-house  yard  and  a 
memorial  was  drawn  up  to  send  to  the  President  protesting 
against  the  Jay  Treaty.  The  objections  set  forth  in  the  me 
morial  were  as  follows : 

1.  It  does  not  provide  for  a  fair  and  effectual  settlement  of 
the   differences   existing  between  the   United   States   and   Great 
Britain,  since  it  postpones  the  surrender  and  gives  no  compensa 
tion  for  the  detention  of  the  Western  Posts ;  since  it  cedes,  with 
out  any  equivalent,  an  indefinite  extent  of  territory  to  settlers 
under  British  titles  within  the  precincts  and  jurisdiction  of  those 
posts ;  since  it  waives  a  just  claim  for  the  value  of  the  negroes 
carried  off  at  the  close  of  the  war  in  violation  of  a  contract ;  since 
it  renders  the  securing  of  an  indemnity  for  the  recent  spoliations 
committed  on  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  an  "equivocal, 
expensive,  tedious  and  uncertain  process." 

2.  By   the    Treaty,   the    federal   government    agrees   to    re 
straints  on  American  trade  and  navigation,  internal  as  well  as 
external,  which  include  no  principle  of  real  reciprocity  and  are 
"inconsistent  with  the  rights  and  destructive  to  the  interests  of 
an  independent  nation;"  because  they  obstruct  intercourse  with 
the  West  Indies,  India,  and  the  American  Lakes  by  means  of 
navigable  rivers  belonging  to  the  English ;  because  in  many  cases 
they  "circumscribe  the  navigation  of  the  United  States  to  a  par 
ticular  voyage ;"  and  because  some  of  our  staple  goods  (exempted 
by  treaties  with  France,  Holland,  Prussia  and  Sweden)  are  made 
liable  to  confiscation  as  contraband  and  others  (exempted  by  the 
law  of  nations)  are  made  liable  to  seizure  upon  payment  of  an 
arbitrary  price,  on  the  charge  that  the  articles  are  useful  to  the 
enemies  of  Great  Britain. 


88  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

3.  The  Treaty  is  ruinous  to  the  domestic  independence  and 
prosperity  of  the  United  States,  since  it  admits  aliens  "to  per 
manent  and  transmissible  rights  of  property  peculiarly  belonging 
to  a  citizen,"  and  since  "it  enables  England  to  draw  a  dangerous 
line  around  the  territory  of  the  Union  by  her  fleet  on  the  At 
lantic  and  by  her  settlements   from  Nova  Scotia  to  the  mouth 
of  the  Mississippi." 

4.  The  Treaty  violates  the  "rights  of   friendship,  gratitude 
and  alliance  which  the  republic  of  France  may  justly  claim  from 
the  United  States ;"  it  is  not  consistent  with  certain  articles  of 
the  American  Treaty  with  France ;  and  it  gives  England,  "cer 
tain,  high,  dangerous  and  exclusive  privileges."26 

Washington,  replying  to  this  memorial  on  July  28,  1795, 
gave  to  the  citizens  of  Philadelphia  the  same  answer  which  he 
had  given  to  a  meeting  of  the  Select-men  of  Boston.  He  said 
that  his  one  and  only  object  was  the  welfare  of  the  country 
which  in  his  opinion  would  be  best  promoted  by  such  a  Treaty.27 

Somewhat  later,  the  merchants  and  traders  of  Philadelphia 
presented  an  address  to  the  President  in  which  they  expressed 
their  approbation  of  the  treaty.28  The  address  stated  that  the 
subscribers  had  had  such  confidence  in  the  wisdom,  integrity  and 
patriotism  of  the  federal  government  that  they  had  refrained 
from  giving  their  views  on  the  treaty  pending  between  England 
and  the  United  States,  although  as  merchants  and  traders  they 
were  more  vitally  concerned  than  any  other  class,  both  because  of 
the  indemnity  stipulated  in  it  for  past  losses  and  because  of  the 
security  it  would  give  to  the  property  used  by  the  merchants  of 
the  United  States  in  their  foreign  commerce.  But  as  other 
citizens  had  expressed  views  on  the  matter,29  and  since  they 


26  Treaty  of  Amity,  Commerce  and  Navigation  between  his  Britannic 
Majesty  and  the  United  States  of  America.  Appendix,  Philadelphia,  1795. 

21  Ibid. 

28  Address  of  a  Number  of  Citizens  of  Philadelphia  to  the  President  of 
United  States,  in  The  American  Remembrance,  Philadelphia,  1795. 

28  The  reference  is  the  to  the  above  mentioned  memorial  submitted  by 
the  citizens  of  Philadelphia. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  89 

feared  lest  their  silence  be  construed  into  an  acquiescence  in 
those  opinions,  they  deemed  it  their  duty  publicly  to  avow  their 
approbation  of  the  conduct  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
believing  that  a  different  conduct  respecting  the  treaty  would 
have  subjected  them  to  the  eminent  hazard  of  war  with  all  its 
concomitant  evils.  And  more  especially  were  they  gratified  be 
cause  provision  was  made  for  the  establishment  of  public  and 
private  credit,  which  would  promote  a  continuance  of  peace  and 
the  further  improvement  of  the  country.  These  were  advantages 
which,  in  their  opinion,  greatly  outweighed  all  objections  to  the 
treaty.  The  address  was  signed  by  a  large  number  of  Philadel 
phia's  merchants  and  tradesmen.  The  President,  in  reply,  ex 
pressed  his  great  appreciation  of  their  support.30 

Cobbett,  in  an  article  in  Porcupine's  Gazette,  February  28, 
1798,  speaks  with  scorn  of  the  opposition  of  the  French  faction 
to  the  Jay  Treaty.  "All  the  evils  arising  from  whatever  cause 
and  even  the  chastisements  from  the  hand  of  the  Almighty  have 
been  all  attributed  to  the  British  Treaty."  And  he  sums  up  its 
benefits  as  follows,  "this  is  the  instrument  that  has  saved  Amer 
ica,  that  has  procured  a  surrender  of  the  Western  Posts,  that 
has  retained  British  capital  in  the  country,  that  has  guarded  its 
commerce  in  many  instances  against  the  ravages  of  the  horde 
of  French  pirates,  and  that  has  restored  and  will  restore  to  the 
merchants  some  millions  of  dollars  while  the  only  thing  that 
Britain  has  obtained  in  return  is  the  payment  of  debts  justly 
due  to  her  subjects  and  which  ought  to  have  been  discharged 
fifteen  years  ago."  The  Treaty  has  fulfilled  our  most  sanguine 
hopes.  The  French  faction  maintained  that  its  terms  would 
never  be  carried  out,  but  time  has  proved  their  predictions  false. 
The  writer  submits  a  report  showing  that  eighty-three  vessels 
have  been  restored  and  55,000  pounds  sterling  ($250,000.)  have 
been  recovered  by  merchants  and  traders  of  America  in  accord 
ance  with  a  stipulation  in  this  treaty. 


President's  Reply,  Ibid. 


SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

j.   Troubles  With  France 

The  Jay  Treaty  disturbed  the  friendly  relations  which  had 
previously  existed  between  the  United  States  and  France  and 
ultimately  led  to  a  breach  of  diplomatic  intercourse.  In  1797, 
President  Adams  appointed  John  Marshall,  Elbridge  Gerry,  and 
Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney  special  commissioners  to  proceed 
to  France  and  make  overtures  for  a  peaceful  settlement.  The 
French  government  refused  to  receive  the  commissioners  and 
apparently  sanctioned  a  scheme  of  blackmail,  carried  on  by  cer 
tain  individuals  who  were  referred  to  in  the  diplomatic  records 
as  X,  Y  and  Z.  The  publication  of  the  X  Y  Z  correspondence 
strengthened  the  anti-French  party  in  the  United  States,  and  ac 
tive  preparations  were  made  for  war.  Adams  sent  a  new  min 
ister  to  France,  however,  and  a  treaty  was  finally  concluded  with 
Napoleon,  September  30,  1800.31 

These  long  and  irregular  negotiations  between  the  United 
States  and  France  gave  rise  to  extended  comment  and  debate  in 
the  press  of  Philadelphia.  An  anonymous  writer  in  the  Aurora32 
was  very  favorable  to  France,  and  ascribed  the  failure  of  the 
American  Commissioners  to  the  hostile  attitude  which  the  ad 
ministration  had  shown  towards  the  French  Republic  during  the 
course  of  the  war.  This  hostility  had  inspired  distrust  and  Mr. 
Pickering's  "insulting  manifesto"33  had  turned  that  distrust  into 
open  enmity.  The  obloquy  which  the  President  had  cast  upon 
the  French  in  his  speech  at  the  opening  of  Congress  had  only 
aggravated  the  situation.  "A  weak  and  wicked"  administration 
had  sacrificed  the  people  of  this  country  to  the  views  and  ambi 
tions  of  England.  "The  French  have  been  injured,"  he  con 
tinued,  "by  the  arbitrary  and  forced  construction  given  to  our 
treaties  with  them,  by  which  their  prizes  have  been  excluded  from 
our  ports  and  the  ships  of  war  of  their  enemies  admitted;  they 

31  For  further  discussion  of  the  X  Y  Z  affair,  and  the  special  litera 
ture  of  the  subject,  see  C.  R.  Fish,  History  of  American  Diplomacy  (New 
York,  1915),  pp.  126-139. 

82  January   12,   1798. 

83  January  27,  1798. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  91 

have  been  injured  by  our  abandonment  of  the  law  of  neutrality 
after  we  had  proclaimed  it ;  they  have  been  injured  by  various 
provisions  in  the  British  Treaty." 

"Fiat  Justitia,"34  writing  in  the  same  paper,  characterized  the 
conduct  of  the  administration  towards  France  as  a  "system  of  hy 
pocrisy  and  treachery."  Mr.  Jefferson,  when  Secretary  of  State, 
in  a  letter  to  Pinckney,  the  American  Minister  to  England,  had 
laid  down  this  principle:  "If  we  permit  corn  to  be  sent  to  Great 
Britain  and  her  friends,  we  are  equally  bound  to  permit  it  to 
France.  To  restrain  it  would  be  a  partiality  which  might  lead 
to  war  with  France."  But  by  our  treaty  with  Great  Britain  we 
excluded  provisions  from  France  by  granting  to  England  the 
right  to  seize  our  provision  vessels  and  carry  them  into  her  ports 
on  paying  a  certain  sum  to  the  owners.  This,  therefore,  was  a 
ground  for  war. 

Another  correspondent  of  the  Aurora35  was  of  the  opinion 
that  peace  had  never  been  so  necessary  or  valuable  to  the  United 
States  as  it  then  was.  If  we  were  to  enter  the  European  war,  we 
would  be  subject  to  great  expense  and  much  confusion.  The 
Spaniards  and  Indians,  led  by  the  French  in  Louisiana,  would 
cause  us  incalculable  expenditures  and  loss  of  property  in  the 
southwest,  aided,  as  they  doubtless  would  be,  by  the  Indians 
of  the  west  and  northwest  who  were  eager  for  revenge.  "All 
our  frontiers  from  Lake  Erie  to  the  31st  degree  of  latitude  would 
again  require  to  be  defended  by  much  blood  and  treasure ;  and 
the  conciliation,  instruction,  and  civilization  of  the  Indians  so 
happily  begun,  would  be  stopped  at  once."  The  effect  of  war 
upon  our  commerce  would  also  be  disastrous  as  we  should  lose 
the  markets  for  most  of  our  exports.  The  expense  of  arming 
our  vessels  in  order  to  protect  their  cargoes  would  be  greatly 
increased;  and  the  loss  of  freight,  necessary  to  make  room  for 
guns,  ammunition,  and  defenders,  the  great  advance  in  seamen's 


34  The  reference  is  to  a  public  letter  addressed  by  the  Secretary  of  War 
to  Mr.  Pinckney  on  January  16,  1797,  while  the  latter  was  acting  as  the 
President's   special  commissioner  to   France.     McMaster,  History   of  the 
People  of  the  United  States,  vol.  II,  p.  313. 

35  March  14,  1798. 


92  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

wages  and  insurance  rates,  all  would  be  considerable.  The 
large  revenues  of  1795,  1796,  and  1797  would  be  greatly  cur 
tailed  at  once ;  and  more  excises,  stamp  duties,  and  land  taxes 
would  have  to  be  levied  at  a  time  when  goods  offered  for  sale 
would  fall  in  price  and  imports  would  rise  in  price.  Our  public 
funds,  bank  stock,  and  insurance  shares  would  fall  in  value.  Our 
specie  would  either  go  abroad  or  be  hoarded  by  the  timid,  and 
paper  would  greatly  increase  in  circulation.  Immigration  of 
people  of  business  and  property  from  Europe  would  cease,  rents 
and  houses  would  diminish  in  value,  and  property  in  this  country 
would  suffer  a  very  great  depression.  Foreigners  already  en 
gaged  in  business  here  would  withdraw,  taking  their  wealth  with 
them. 

But  if  we  remained  at  peace,  and  the  destructive  war  between 
England  and  France  continued  another  year,  new  investments 
would  be  made  in  this  country,  as  shown  by  the  steady  price  of 
our  stocks  and  bonds  at  this  critical  time.  "The  true  and  great 
question  of  the  present  day,"  he  concluded,  "is  whether  we  shall 
engage  in  the  most  wild  and  expensive  war  ever  known,  nay  in  a 
ruinous  war,  for  temporary,  limited,  and  questionable  commercial 
advantages.  .  .  Let  us  rely  upon  our  distance  from  Europe 
as  a  promising  security  against  actual  invasion,  and  let  us  believe 
that  if  such  a  measure  were  to  be  attempted,  the  justice  of  a 
war  to  defend  our  homes  would  render  the  people  of  the  United 
States  one  irresistible  phalanx  to  defend  the  best  of  countries  and 
existing  constitutions." 

The  following  article  appeared  in  Carey's  United  States  Re 
corder  for  July  3,  1798:  "To  real  Americans  of  every  political 
creed,  we  apprehend  the  following  important  state-paper  [Dec 
laration  of  Independence]  cannot  be  uninteresting  on  the  coming 
great  national  festival.  And  to  both  [Federalists  and  Republi 
cans]  it  ought  to  serve  as  a  beacon  to  warn  America  from  draw 
ing  closer  the  bonds  of  connection  with  that  tyrant  whose  mani 
fold  aggressions  laid  the  foundations  of  such  a  series  of  war, 
misery,  and  ruin  as  we  ardently  pray  that  these  states  may  never 
more  experience." 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  93 

The  most  vigorous  of  the  anti-French  articles  and  letters 
were  those  published  in  Porcupine's  Gazette,  many  of  them  com 
ing  from  the  pen  of  Cobbett  himself.  In  an  article  entitled  "War 
and  an  Alliance  with  Great  Britain  or  a  Polite  Welcome  to  Gen 
eral  Embargo/'36  Cobbett  attacked  the  statement  made  by  the 
editor  of  the  New  York  Gazette  that  an  embargo  was  "the  only 
resource  of  the  country."  Cobbett  called  this  "the  most  stupid 
and  degrading  notion  that  ever  entered  a  sans-culotte  brain. 
No  nation  is  worthy  of  the  epithet  independent,  which  cannot, 
either  by  its  own  forces  or  by  means  of  auxiliaries  or  alliances, 
enforce  its  rights  or  avenge  the  infringement  of  them.  Without 
this  the  name  of  independence  is  far  worse  than  nothing,  it  is  a 
delusion  and  a  curse." 

Every  merchant  has  the  right  to  expect  and  demand  of  the 
Government  protection  in  his  lawful  trade.  But  what  protection 
does  a  government  afford  which  rights  with  an  embargo?  In 
peace  times  he  pays  a  heavy  duty  on  all  goods  that  pass  through 
his  hands.  When  war  comes,  justice  demands  that  he  be  given 
the  protection  he  has  so  long  been  paying  for,  but  all  he  receives 
is  the  suspension  of  his  trade :  "Under  its  paternal  shelter,  he 
has  the  comfort  to  see  his  vessels  rotting  at  his  wharves,  while 
his  purse,  or  his  person  is  harassed  with  militia  laws  for  the 
defence  of  whatever  is  lucky  enough  to  belong  to  the  proprietors 
of  the  soil."  As  to  the  destructive  effects  of  an  embargo,  "A 
single  year  of  this  gallant  species  of  warfare  would  see  the 
United  States  without  a  sailor  and  almost  without  a  ship.  The 
tars  would  not  stay  here  to  starve  for  'liberty's  sake' ;  the  mer 
chants  would  sell  their  vessels  to  foreigners  whose  governments 
are  able  and  willing  to  protect  them  in  the  use  of  them ;  and 
the  farmers  might  prowl  about  in  rags  over  their  uncultivated 
fields." 

Of  the  two  alternatives,  war  or  embargo,  Cobbett  believes 
that  war  with  France  is  absolutely  necessary,  and  that  an  offen 
sive  and  defensive  alliance  with  Great  Britain  will  inevitably  fol- 


36  Porcupine's  Gazette,  January  25,  1798. 


94  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

low.  In  the  first  place  what  could  America,  backed  by  the  in 
vincible  fleets  of  Great  Britain,  possibly  lose  in  a  contest  with 
France?  The  navy  would  be  able  to  defend  our  seaports  and 
afford  a  convoy  to  American  ships  engaged  in  trade.  The  trade 
with  France  would  be  cut  off,  but  this  trade  is  of  no  value  to 
America.  The  French  have  no  manufactures  and,  if  they  had, 
the  people  of  this  country  would  not  use  them.  Of  late  years, 
France  has  been,  to  be  sure,  a  considerable  market  for  American 
produce,  but  for  the  millions  worth  of  goods  which  have  gone 
to  her  ports,  she  has  not,  upon  an  average,  paid  more  than  the 
freight.  "Almost  every  merchant  that  has  failed  (and  the  num 
ber  is  awful)  was  a  trader  to  France,  or  her  colonies  and  all 
the  distress  that  now  weighs  down  the  country  is  to  be  ascribed 
to  this  destructive  cause."  Of  foreign  capital  invested  in  banks 
or  employed  in  trade,  the  part  that  belongs  to  Frenchmen  is  con 
temptible  indeed.  But  it  is  said  that  "the  friendship  of  the 
sister  republic"  would  be  lost  by  war.  "This  is  the  mighty  loss ; 
the  friendship  of  a  nation  who  has  trampled  you  under  her  feet 
and  now  aims  at  the  destruction  of  your  government."  Now,  on 
the  other  hand,  what  is  to  be  gained  by  a  war?  The  immediate 
effect  would  be  an  unobstructed  passage  over  the  ocean  without 
fear  of  seizure  or  even  of  examination.  Commerce  would  revive, 
the  confidence  of  commercial  men  would  be  re-established,  and 
the  spirit  of  enterprise  renewed.  American  seamen  would  no 
longer  be  seized,  shot  at,  and  flogged  within  sight  of  their  own 
shores. 

Louisiana  might  be  secured,  and  "thus  would  the  States  be 
completely  rid  of  the  most  alarming  danger  that  ever  menaced 
them;  and  which,  if  it  be  not  soon  removed,  must  and  will  in  a 
few  years,  effect  their  disunion  and  destruction."  But,  most  im 
portant  of  all,  an  alliance  with  Great  Britain  would  destroy  the 
French  faction  in  this  country.  "It  is  my  sincere  opinion  that 
they  have  formed  the  diabolical  plan  of  revolutionizing  (to  use 
one  of  their  execrable  terms),  the  whole  continent  of  America. 
They  have  their  agents  and  partizans  without  number  and,  very 
often,  where  we  do  not  imagine.  .  .  .  They  have  explored 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  95 

the  country  to  its  utmost  boundaries  and  its  inmost  recesses  and 
have  left  a  partisan  on  every  spot,  ready  to  preach  up  the  holy 
right  of  insurrection.  .  .  This  dreadful  scourge  nothing  can 
prevent  but  a  war."  That  some  of  his  enemies  would  revive 
their  old  charge  that  he  was  a  "hireling  of  Pitt,"  Cobbett  was 
well  aware ;  but  he  asserted  that  England  could  gain  nothing  from 
such  an  alliance  except  an  advantage  shared  in  common  with 
all  other  civilized  nations,  that  of  "staying  the  destructive  tor 
rent  of  Jacobinism." 

A  writer  in  Porcupine's  Gazette?'1  who  signed  himself  "Y," 
thought  it  absurd  to  attribute  all  the  hostility  between  France  and 
the  United  States  to  the  "deceptions  and  encouragement  of  an 
American  faction."  "The  evil  did  not  originate  with  them,  but 
in  the  deep-laid,  inveterate  policy  of  France,  her  ambition,  in 
trigue,  and  corruption  are  more  to  be  dreaded  and  execrated  than 
all  the  democrats  of  America.  We  must  either  agree  to  be  gov 
erned  by  a  French  Minister  and  conform  at  all  times  to  her  am 
bitious  and  turbulent  politics  or  incur  her  displeasure;  an  honest 
neutrality  she  will  not  suffer,  any  more  than  she  will  bear  a 
rival."  If  France  should  promise  compensation  for  the  damage 
she  has  done  and  agree  never  to  offend  again,  "let  us  not  for 
get  that  she  still  is  France,  artful,  perfidious  France,  and  only 
waits  another  opportunity  to  aim  a  surer  blow." 

Porcupine's  Gazette  for  January  1,  1799,  contains  an  account 
of  an  English  victory  over  the  French  off  the  north  of  Ireland, 
and  also  of  the  Battle  of  the  Nile.  "This  is  a  charming  com 
mencement  of  the  New  Year.  This  day  twelve  months  will  be 
the  first  of  the  nineteenth  century  and  before  it  arrives,  I  think 
we  shall  see  the  republic  of  France  humbled  to  the  dust  and  her 
despots  destroyed."  And  next  day  the  Gazette  continued  in 
a  similar  vein  : 

"Before  it  [the  New  Year]  be  terminated,  I  think  we  shall 
see  the  rapacious,  the  base,  the  bloody  Republic  of  France  totally 
annihilated  and  her  pillaged  territory  wrested  from  her,  if  not 


"April  4,   1797. 


96  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

her  ancient  dominions  frittered  away.  The  century  began  with 
a  glorious  war  on  the  part  of  the  Britons  against  the  intrigues 
and  ambitious  projects  of  this  vain  and  perfidious  race." 

"Americanus"38  was  of  the  opinion  that  France  had  already 
declared  war  upon  us  the  day  on  which  she  so  contemptuously 
dismissed  our  minister.  Speaking  of  the  Jacobins,  he  says :  "one 
of  their  common  tricks  has  been  to  represent  that  many-headed 
monster  the  Republic  as  waging  war  against  the  tyrants  of  Eur 
ope  to  establish  universal  liberty  and  peace,  when  nothing  can  be 
more  foreign  from  the  truth.  .  .  .  The  case  is  just  the  re 
verse  ;  this  common  enemy  has  invaded  the  rights  of  all  other 
nations  and,  abroad  as  well  as  at  home,  she  has  shown  the  most 
daring  contempt  for  every  law  and  principle  that  is  reverenced 
among  men.  After  fighting  like  devils  for  seven  years,  to  con 
quer  liberty  as  they  phrase  it,  the  people  of  France  are  at  this 
instant,  the  most  contemptible  slaves  existing.  .  .  .  But 
whatever  may  be  the  future  fate  of  this  degraded  people,  whether 
they  are  destined  to  groan  long  under  the  scourge  of  vulgar 
tyrants  or  to  submit  to  the  milder  sway  of  their  ancient  line  of 
princes,  it  is  happy  for  us  that  the  alliance  between  France  and 
America  is  at  an  end.  God  forbid  it  should  ever  be  revived !" 


Gazette  of  the  United  States,  February  23,  1798. 


CHAPTER  IV 

POLITICAL  PARTIES 
/.  The  Origin  of  Parties 

Three  different  theories  as  to  the  origin  of  national  political 
parties  in  the  United  States  have  recently  been  advocated.  Pro 
fessor  John  Spencer  Bassett  thinks  that  there  were  fairly  well 
defined  parties  in  1791,  but  he  does  not  think  that  they  had  any 
very  direct  connection  with  the  parties  of  1787-1788.  In  other 
words,  he  holds  that  the  political  divisions  of  the  country  which 
resulted  from  the  ratification  of  the  constitution  were  not  car 
ried  over  into  Washington's  administration,  but  disappeared 
when  the  constitution  was  adopted.  The  Federalist  party  of 
1787-1788  was  composed  of  those  who  wished  a  more  effective 
government  than  that  which  existed  under  the  Articles  of  Con 
federation,  and  the  Federalist  party  of  1791  consisted  of  those 
who  supported  Hamilton  and  his  policies.  The  problems  of 
1791  were  new  and  not  concerned  with  union  or  confusion  but 
with  two  distinct  and  different  lines  of  internal  policy.1 

Professor  O.  G.  Libby  agrees  with  Professor  Bassett  that 
the  division  of  the  country  into  Federalists  and  Anti-Federalists 
over  the  ratification  of  the  constitution  was  not  the  beginning  of 
the  later  Federalist-Republican  alignment,  but  he  goes  further 
and  denies  the  existence  of  any  real  party  cleavage  during  the 
administration  of  Washington  and  the  early  part  of  the  admin 
istration  of  Adams.  He  regards  this  as  a  transitional  period 
so  far  as  party  development  was  concerned.  There  were  fac 
tional  and  sectional  animosities  but  no  genuine  party  divisions. 
It  was  only  with  the  enactment  of  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Laws 
during  Adams's  administration  that  a  real  political  party  came 
into  existence.  Jefferson  saw  in  these  laws  and  the  indignation 
to'which  they  gave  rise,  because  of  their  severity  towards  aliens 
and  the  menace  to  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  the  op- 


1J.  S.  Bassett,  The  Federalist  System  (New  York  .and  London,  1906), 
p.  42. 


98  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

portunity  to  found  a  genuine  political  party.  Libby  character 
izes  the  presidential  election  of  1800  as  a  turning  point  in  our 
history  fully  as  important  as  the  adoption  of  the  constitution. 
It  was  a  victory  of  the  first  political  party  that  really  represented 
the  people  of  the  United  States.2 

Professor  C.  A.  Beard  disagrees  with  these  two  scholars.  He 
is  inclined  to  think  that  there  was  "a  fundamental  relation  be 
tween  the  division  over  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  and  the 
later  party  antagonism  between  Federalists  and  Anti-Federal 
ists."  His  theory  is  based  upon  evidence  gained  from  a  study 
of  pamphlets  and  periodicals  of  the  decade  from  1790  to  1800, 
which  leaves  no  doubt  in  his  mind  that  definite  party  alignments 
did  exist  and  that  they  were  generally  recognized.  Furthermore, 
the  writings  of  such  representative  men  as  Washington,  Hamil 
ton,  Jefferson,  and  Madison  give  proof  that  their  authors  thought 
there  were  political  parties.  The  names  Federalist  and  Anti- 
Federalist  were  frequently  used  in  the  literature  of  the  period.3 

There  are  many  letters  and  articles  in  the  Philadelphia  news 
papers  of  the  time  which  throw  light  upon  the  problem  of  the 
origin  of  political  parties,  and  so  far  as  their  evidence  goes  it 
supports  the  theory  of  Professor  Beard.  For  example,  a  cor 
respondent  of  the  National  Gazette,4  in  an  article  entitled  "A 
Candid  State  of  Parties,"  is  positive  that  parties  existed  in  1792 
and  also  that  there  was  a  direct  connection  between  the  party 
lines  existing  in  1789,  when  the  constitution  was  adopted,  and 
those  of  the  period  immediately  following,  when  the  measures 
of  the  Federal  Government  were  being  put  into  operation.  The 
writer  states  that  there  have  been  three  periods  of  party  de 
velopment.  In  the  first  period,  the  distinction  was  between 
Whigs  and  Tories,  those  who  advocated  the  cause  of  indepen 
dence  and  those  who  adhered  to  the  British.  This  state  of  things 


2  O.  G.  Libby,  articles  in  The  Quarterly  Journal  of  the   University  of 
North  Dakota,  vols.  II  and  III.     Quoted  in  C.  A.  Beard,  Economic  Ori 
gins  of  Jeffersonian  Democracy,  pp.  12-33. 

3  Beard,  Economic  Origins  of  Jeffersonian  Democracy,  pp.  32-33. 

4  September  26,  1792. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  99 

was  ended  by  the  treaty  of  peace  in  1783.  The  second  period  be 
gan  in  1783  with  the  adoption  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
and  was  terminated  in  1789  with  the  ratification  of  the  Consti 
tution.  The  party  divisions  of  the  third  period  turned  upon  the 
differences  of  opinion  regarding  the  measures  to  be  employed  in 
carrying  the  principles  of  the  constitution  into  effect,  and  were  in 
fact  a  continuation  of  the  previous  alignment. 

One  of  the  divisions,  which  he  calls  the  Anti-Republican 
party,  consists  of  "those  who,  from  particular  interest,  from 
natural  temper  or  from  the  habits  of  life,  are  more  partial  to  the 
opulent  than  to  the  other  classes  of  society  and  having  debauched 
themselves  into  a  persuasion  that  mankind  are  incapable  of  gov 
erning  themselves,  it  follows  with  them,  of  course,  that  govern 
ment  can  be  carried  on  only  by  the  pageantry  of  rank,  the  influ 
ence  of  money  and  emoluments  and  the  terror  of  military  force. 
Men  of  these  sentiments  must  naturally  wish  to  point  the  meas 
ures  of  government  less  to  the  interest  of  the  many  than  of  a  few 
and  less  to  the  reason  of  the  many  than  to  their  weaknesses, 
hoping  the  government  itself  may  by  degrees  be  narrowed  in  a 
fewer  hands  and  approximated  to  a  hereditary  form."  The 
other,  which  he  calls  the  Republican  party,  consists  of  "those 
who,  believing  in  the  doctrine  that  mankind  are  capable  of 
governing  themselves  and  hating  hereditary  power  as  an  insult 
to  the  reason  and  an  outrage  to  the  rights  of  man,  are  naturally 
offended  at  every  public  measure  that  does  not  appeal  to  the  un 
derstanding  and  to  the  general  interest  of  the  community  or  that 
is  not  strictly  conformable  to  the  principles  of  republican  govern 
ment." 

The  writer  of  an  anonymous  pamphlet,  A  Definition  of 
Parties,  published  in  Philadelphia  in  1794,  had  no  doubt  that 
there  was  a  distinct  party  cleavage.  The  dedication  to  his 
work  contains  these  words  :  "The  existence  of  two  parties  in 
Congress  is  apparent.  The  fact  is  disclosed  almost  upon  every 
important  question.  Whether  the  subject  be  foreign  or  domes 
tic — relative  to  war  or  peace — navigation  or  commerce — the  mag 
netism  of  opposite  views  draws  them  wide  as  the  poles  asunder. 


100  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

The  situation  of  the  public  good  in  the  hands  of  two  parties 
nearly  poised  as  to  numbers  must  be  extremely  perilous.  Truth 
is  a  thing,  not  of  divisibility  into  conflicting  parts,  but  of  unity. 
Hence  both  sides  cannot  be  right." 

The  formation  of  parties  was  due  to  the  operation  of  many 
cross  currents,  social,  economic  and  sectional.  There  were 
struggles  between  rich  and  poor,  between  creditors  and  debtors, 
between  industrialists  and  agrarians,  between  slave-holders  and 
non-slave  holders,  between  the  North  and  the  South,  and  between 
the  people  of  the  tide-water  section  and  the  people  of  the  fron 
tier.  These  diverse  elements  tended  to  consolidate  into  the  Fed 
eralist  and  Republican  parties.  Although  the  division  was  mainly 
the  result  of  differences  of  opinion  on  political  issues,  it  had  as 
its  philosophical  basis  two  conflicting  theories  of  constitutional 
interpretation,  the  nationalist  or  loose-construction  theory  of 
Hamilton  and  the  states-rights  or  strict-construction  theory  of 
Jefferson.  All  these  questions  were  discussed  at  length  in  the 
newspapers  and  pamphlets  of  the  Federalist  period.  The  plan 
of  the  following  exposition  will  be  to  deal  first  with  the  question 
of  constitutional  interpretation  and  then  to  consider  the  political 
issues. 

2.  Constitutional  Interpretation 

In  his  celebrated  opinion  on  the  constitutionality  of  a  na 
tional  bank,5  February  23,  1791,  Hamilton  had  argued  in  favor 
of  a  liberal  interpretation  of  that  clause  of  the  constitution  which 
empowered  Congress  "to  make  all  laws  which  may  be  necessary 
and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution"  its  vested  functions. 
These  views  were  further  elaborated  in  his  Report  on  Manufac 
tures,6  December  5,  1791,  and  the  argument  was  strengthened 
by  an  appeal  to  the  "General  Welfare"  clause  of  the  constitution. 
The  principle  was  laid  down  that  the  powers  of  Congress  are  not 
susceptible  of  specification  or  definition,  that  every  object  which 
operates  through  the  whole  nation  concerns  the  general  welfare, 


5  Hamilton's   Writings,  vol.  Ill,  pp.  445-493. 

6  Ibid.,  vol.  IV,  pp.  70-198. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA/  l/S^lSOl  l6i  ' 


that  it  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  Congress  just  what  those  ob 
jects  which  concern  the  general  welfare  shall  be,  and  that  what 
ever  concerns  education,  agriculture,  manufactures  and  commerce 
comes  within  the  sphere  of  the  national  legislature. 

But,  asked  a  correspondent  of  the  National  Gazette,7  "Is 
there  any  object  of  consequence  for  which  money  is  not  necessary 
or  any  object  at  all  which  money  may  not  be  applied  to  and  so 
be  brought  under  the  power  of  Congress?  Is  there  any  object 
which  in  its  operation  may  not  by  possibility  extend  through  the 
Union?  Cannot  such  a  discretion  of  the  national  legislature 
pronounce  all  objects  whatever  to  concern  the  general  welfare? 
Can  any  usurpation  of  power  be  judged  unconstitutional  by  the 
judicial  authority,  if  the  legislature  can  constitutionally  do  what 
ever  in  their  discretion  concerns  the  general  welfare?  Does 
not  what  concerns  the  general  interest  of  learning,  agriculture, 
manufactures  and  commerce  embrace  by  far  the  greatest  part  of 
the  sphere  of  legislation?"  If  the  legislature  can  declare  such 
matters  to  concern  the  general  welfare,  cannot  they  apply  the 
same  discretion  to  provision  for  the  poor,  maintenance  of  an  es 
tablished  church  and  anything  else  it  pleases  ?  There  is  danger 
that  such  a  doctrine  would  destroy  every  boundary  between  the 
general  and  state  governments  and  give  indefinite  powers  to  the 
former.  Also  there  is  the  same  danger  of  breaking  down  the  bar 
riers  between  the  several  departments  of  the  general  government 
and  making  either  the  executive  or  the  legislative  supreme. 
"Was  not  the  general  government  adopted  and  has  it  not  been 
by  all  the  world  understood  as  limited  to  the  particular  powers 
specifying  and  defining  the  general  terms,  common  defence  and 
general  welfare  ;  and  not  as  clothed  by  these  terms  with  power 
susceptible  neither  of  specification  nor  definition?  If  the  ex 
position  in  the  Report  should  prevail,  will  not  the  people  of 
America  be  under  a  Government  which  is  not  the  choice  of  the 
people  but  the  choice  of  those  who  administer  the  government? 
Is  there  not  a  degree  of  misconstruction  and  assumption  of 

7  January  12,  1792. 


f02  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

power  that  may  raise  the  awful  question,  whether  it  does  not 
touch  the  fundamental  compact  of  government,  and  is  it  not  wise 
to  keep  at  a  distance  from  that  danger?" 

The  possibility  of  the  division  of  the  Union  into  a  Northern 
and  Southern  Confederacy  was  apparently  suggested  as  early 
as  1791.  In  answer  to  these  suggestions  there  appeared  an 
article  in  the  National  Gazette,  November  10,  1791,  entitled 
"The  Interest  of  the  Northern  and  Southern  States  Forever  In 
separable,"  in  which  the  writer  predicts  that  there  will  always 
be  the  closest  relations  between  the  North  and  the  South.  It 
was  the  design  of  nature  in  her  formation  of  that  part  of  North 
America  occupied  by  the  United  States,  that  the  two  sections 
should  ever  be  mutually  dependent  on  each  other.  Because  of 
New  England's  not  very  fertile  or  productive  soil,  a  great  part 
of  her  population  will  be  engaged  in  fisheries,  many  others  will 
be  employed  in  manufacturing;  while  many  would  be  out  of 
employment,  if  it  were  not  for  the  carrying  trade  of  the  Southern 
states  from  Maryland  to  Georgia.  "An  intimate  union,  founded 
upon  the  broad  basis  of  the  carrying  trade  may  continue  durable 
as  time  and  the  present  constitution  of  things."  It  will  probably 
never  be  to  the  interest  of  the  Southern  States  to  become  their 
own  carriers.  Nothing  now  seems  to  be  wanting  to  strengthen 
the  close  connection  between  the  northern  and  southern  parts  of 
this  country  except  a  capital  situated  in  the  center  of  the  country 
and  easily  accessible  to  all  parts. 

There  was,  however,  no  general  discussion  of  nullification 
and  of  the  dangers  of  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  until  Congress 
began  to  consider  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Acts  in  1798.  The 
constitutionality  of  those  measures  was  challenged  in  the  news 
papers,  and  threats  of  revolution  and  nullification  were  made 
several  months  before  the  appearance  of  the  Kentucky  and  Vir 
ginia  Resolutions.8  The  issue  of  Carey's  United  States  Re- 


8  The  Alien  Act  was  passed  June  25th;  the  Alien  Enemies  Act,  July 
6th;  and  the  Sedition  Act,  July  14,  1798.  The  Kentucky  Resolutions  were 
adopted  November  16,  1798,  and  November  22,  1799,  and  the  Virginia 
Resolutions  December  24,  1798. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  103 

corder  for  July  3,  1798,  contains  several  sarcastic  paragraphs  on 
the  Sedition  Law,  including  the  following  attack  upon  Cobbett : 
"Some  of  our  first  architects  are  now  busily  employed  in  mak 
ing  out  a  plan  and  elevation  of  a  Bastile  upon  a  large  scale  for 
reception  of  seditious  republicans,  Jacobins  and  United  Irishmen 

.  .  .  If  the  important  office  of  keeper  of  that  bulwark  of 
national  and  presidential  security,  the  Bastile,  be  not  already 
given  away  or  promised  to  some  of  the  great  war  chiefs  in 
either  house  of  Congress,  we  would  recommend  Peter  Porcu 
pine  as  a  proper  Cerberus  for  that  department.  .  .  .  From 
the  number  of  plots  and  conspiracies  which  have  lately  been 
discovered  by  Porcupine  and  certain  members  of  a  great  house, 
it  would  not  be  a  matter  of  astonishment  if  they  should  bring  to 
light  a  French  or  Jacobin  plot  for  'blowing  up  the  Delaware'  in 
order  to  drown  Philadelphia  and  destroy  our  incipient  naval 
power  and  greatness." 

Carey  also  brought  forward  arguments  in  favor  of  the  right 
of  a  state  to  pass  upon  the  constitutionality  of  an  act  of  Con 
gress  :  "When  a  law  shall  have  been  passed,  in  violation  of  the 
constitution,  making  it  criminal  to  expose  the  crimes,  the  official 
vices  or  abuses  or  the  attempts  of  men  in  power  to  usurp  a  des 
potic  authority,  is  there  any  alternative  between  an  abandonment 
of  the  constitution  and  resistance?  .  .  .  ."  "What  is  a  fac 
tion?"  he  continues.  "It  is  any  number  of  men  in  or  out  of 
office  eager  to  obtain  or  maintain  themselves  in  power,  in  direct 
violation  of  the  laws  or  constitution  or  in  opposition  to  the  inter 
ests  of  a  nation.  For  an  illustration  first  read  the  third  sup 
plementary  article  to  the  federal  constitution  and  then  read 
all  the  sedition  bills."9  "Is  not  every  officer  of  a  state  govern 
ment  sworn  to  support  the  constitution  of  the  United  States? 
If  the  federal  government  passes  laws  contravening  the  consti 
tution,  is  it  not  a  breach  of  oath  in  a  state  officer  to  carry  such 
laws  into  effect  ?  Are  not  the  state  as  well  as  the  federal  govern 
ment  to  judge  of  the  constitution?  Is  not  the  constitution  a  con- 


9  Carey's  United  States  Recorder,  July  3,  1798. 


104  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

tract  between  different  states?     Are  not  they  to  judge  whether 
this  contract  be  broken  or  violated?"10 

Numerous  articles  and  letters  in  defense  of  the  Alien  and 
Sedition  Acts  appeared  in  Porcupine's  Gazette.  Cobbett's  own 
views  were  stated  in  the  issue  for  January  5,  1799 :  "The  follow 
ing  article,"  he  says,  ''is  taken  from  a  Dublin  paper  of  October 
12.  Read  it,  I  pray  you,  whoever  you  are,  and  then  tell  me  if 
the  Alien  and  Sedition  Bills  are  not  necessary :  'Yesterday  eve 
ning  the  State  prisoners  were  all  served  with  notice  to  prepare 
for  their  departure  to  America.  None  of  them  will  be  allowed 
at  large  through  the  city  previous  to  their  embarkation.  And 
those  who  do  not  comply  with  the  terms  of  going  direct  to 
America  in  vessels  appointed  by  the  government  will  be  confined 
here  during  the  war.'  I  absolutely  would  ship  them  off  if  I 
were  the  President,  the  moment  they  landed  in  the  country.  I 
do  not  know  where  I  would  send  them  to,  but  here  they  should 
not  remain.  This  is  making  a  Botany  Bay  of  this  country  with 
a  vengeance." 

"Plain  Truth"  contributed  a  series  of  articles  to  Porcupine's 
Gazette  on  the  question  of  the  separation  of  the  states,  his  pur 
pose  being  to  show  that  there  was  just  cause  to  fear  for  the 
safety  of  the  Union,  to  fear  that  plans  had  been  formed  which 
would  be  fatal  to  the  peace  and  destructive  of  the  United  States 
of  America  and  that  it  was  time  for  sleeping  federalism  to  take 
alarm  and  arouse  itself.  It  was  very  essential  for  our  welfare, 
the  writer  argued,  that  the  Union  be  preserved :  "To  every  cool, 
reflecting  mind,  it  must  be  obvious  that  our  national  independence 
and  consequently  our  individual  liberty,  that  our  peace  and  our 
happiness  depend  entirely  on  maintaining  our  Union.  There 
has  already  been  much  discussion  of  a  distinct  Northern  and 
Southern  interest ;  and  in  case  there  should  be  a  division,  a 
Southern  Confederacy  with  Virginia  at  the  head  would  be  likely. 
The  Potomac  would  doubtless  form  the  Northern  boundary,  as 
Maryland  has  given  proof  that  she  would  go  with  the  North. 


"Ibid.,  July  14,  1798. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  105 

Furthermore,  the  two  Carolinas  and  Georgia  have  shown  the 
same  disposition.  Virginia  then,  with  Kentucky  and  possibly 
Tennessee,  would  form  the  new  Empire.  It  could  not  be  more 
extensive." 

Cobbett  comments  favorably  on  the  motives  of  "Plain  Truth" 
and  hopes  that  he  will  succeed  in  his  efforts  to  arouse  the  de 
fenders  of  the  Union:  "That  the  states  will  separate  one  day 
or  another,  every  man  must  believe,  but  whether  the  separation 
is  to  take  place  in  a  few  years  or  not,  will  greatly  depend  on  these 
two  powerful  states  [Pennsylvania  and  Virginia].  If  they  coal 
esce  in  the  project,  I  am  afraid  no  power  on  earth  can  prevent 
its  succeeding." 

There  may,  however,  he  continues,  be  another  cause  of  sepa 
ration  which  "Plain  Truth"  does  not  mention :  "The  New  Eng- 
landers  know  well  that  they  are  the  rock  of  the  Union.  They 
know  their  own  value,  they  feel  their  strength,  and  they  will  have 
their  full  share  of  influence  in  the  federal  government  or  they 
will  not  be  governed  by  it.  It  is  clear  that  their  influence  must 
decrease,  because  every  man  has  a  vote  and  the  middle  and  south 
ern  states  are  increasing  in  inhabitants  five  times  as  fast  as  New 
England  is.  If  Pennsylvania  joins  her  influence  to  that  of  New 
England,  the  balance  will  be  kept  up,  but  the  moment  she  de 
cidedly  throws  it  into  the  scale  of  Virginia,  the  balance  is  gone. 
New  England  loses  all  her  influence  in  the  National  Government 
and  she  establishes  a  Government  of  her  own."11 

j.  Political  Issues 

The  formation  of  political  parties  was  largely  the  result 
of  disputes  over  problems  of  finance  and  foreign  policy  which 
have  already  been  discussed.12  Many  of  the  other  political  is 
sues  of  the  time  were  also  more  or  less  associated  with  these  two 
subjects.  The  selection  of  the  federal  capital,  for  example,  be 
came  involved  in  the  controversy  over  the  assumption  of  state 
debts.  The  Whiskey  Rebellion  was  caused  by  Hamilton's  excise 


Porcupine's  Gazette,  April  1,  1799. 
1  See  chapters  II  and  III. 


106  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

tax.  The  Democratic  Societies  were  formed  to  express  sym 
pathy  with  France  and  distrust  of  Great  Britain.  The  Alien  and 
Sedition  Laws  and  the  Kentucky  and  Virginia  Resolutions  were 
direct  outgrowths  of  troubles  with  France  during  President 
Adams's  administration. 

(a)   The  Seat  of  the  Government 

During  1789  and  the  early  part  of  1790,  considerable  parti 
san  feeling  was  aroused  over  the  question  of  the  location  of  the 
permanent  seat  of  government.  The  final  result  is  well  known, 
and  need  not  detain  us.  Hamilton  secured  the  necessary  votes 
in  favor  of  the  site  on  the  Potomac  in  return  for  Jefferson's  aid 
in  securing  the  assumption  of  the  state  debts.  But  an  examina 
tion  of  the  newspaper  debate  over  this  issue  will  throw  not  a  little 
light  on  the  development  of  opinion. 

"A  True  Federalist,"  writing  in  the  Pennsylvania  Packet, 
summed  up  his  arguments  against  the  claims  of  New  York  as 
follows:13  (1)  The  states,  in  parting  with  the  various  powers 
which  they  vested  in  the  federal  government,  thought  that  in 
so  strengthening  the  Union  they  were  furthering  their  own  in 
terests.  But  the  Union  is  endangered,  if  the  mutual  interests  of 
all  are  not  impartially  considered.  (2)  To  assemble  the  govern 
ment  in  a  place  so  far  from  the  geographical  center  of  popula 
tion  (there  being  forty-two  representatives  and  sixteen  senators 
from  the  south  of  New  York  and  seventeen  representatives  and 
eight  senators  to  the  north  of  New  York)  is  a  very  partial  act. 
New  York  may  become  so  powerful  as  to  endanger  the  Union. 
(3)  That  part  of  the  constitution  which  gives  a  majority  of  the 
legislature  the  right  to  regulate  commerce,  a  fact  which  may  tend 
to  monopolize  the  carrying  trade,  as  well  as  the  power  to  estab 
lish  duties  on  foreign  imports,  may,  by  incautious  or  interested 
exercise  of  these  powers,  be  made  the  instrument  of  oppression 
to  the  southern  states.  (4)  In  case  of  any  great  question  in 
which  the  northern  states  are  particularly  interested  the  repre 
sentatives  from  those  states,  from  'local  advantages  of  situa- 


;  January  5,  1789. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  107 

tion,"  might  assemble  quickly  and  put  through  their  schemes  be 
fore  the  southern  representatives  were  able  to  assemble.  (5) 
The  government  should  be  located  near  the  geographical  center 
of  population  where  all  might  most  conveniently  enjoy  its  bene 
fits,  where  the  collective  resources  of  the  Union  might  be  as 
sembled  and  administered  with  greatest  ease,  where  any  news 
of  an  enemy  or  of  a  domestic  insurrection  might  be  obtained  most 
speedily,  where  the  more  southern  states  in  continual  dangers 
from  their  proximity  to  the  settlements  of  foreign  nations  as 
well  as  to  hostile  tribes  of  Indians  might  have  confidence  in  the 
aid  of  the  government.  (6)  The  southern  states  consume  more 
imported  articles  than  the  north,  and  consequently  the  most  of 
the  revenue  from  the  impost  will  come  from  the  southern  states ; 
therefore  they  should  have  a  chance  of  being  benefited  by  the 
expenditure  of  this  money,  and  this  will  be  possible  only  if  they 
are  as  near  the  seat  of  government  as  the  other  states.  (7) 
The  situation  of  the  capital  should  be  central,  so  that  those  who 
have  business  with  the  fiscal  and  judicial  departments,  together 
with  their  counsel  and  witnesses,  may  easily  get  to  it.  (8)  The 
rapid  growth  of  the  West  must  be  considered ;  and  the  site  se 
lected  must  be  more  advantageous  from  their  point  of  view.  (9) 
The  reins  of  control  will  necessarily  have  to  be  relaxed  in  normal 
times  at  a  great  distance  from  the  seat  of  government ;  and  that 
will  make  it  necessary  for  districts  farther  away  to  submit  to 
extraordinary  assertions  of  governmental  power  in  cases  of 
pressing  emergency.  "How  far  the  exercise  of  a  high-handed 
authority  will  accord  with  the  feelings  of  the  citizens  of  the 
southern  states  requires  little  reflection  to  determine."  (10) 
The  only  plea  that  is  alleged  for  summoning  Congress  to  meet 
at  New  York  is  the  fact  that  the  archives  are  there ;  but  these 
could  be  moved  to  a  more  central  location,  cheaply  and  without 
injury.  (11)  New  York  is  open  to  the  sea  and  without  defence. 
Congress  should  meet  in  a  place  that  is  more  free  from  danger. 
(12)  Where  public  revenues  are  concentrated,  there  is  the  center 
of  the  great  monied  operations.  Many  will  be  induced  to  settle 
there,  as  business  can  be  transacted  more  speedily.  Those  who 


108  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

live  in  the  vicinity  will  have  a  better  chance  of  obtaining  public 
offices  since  they  can  make  application  personally.  For  this 
reason  Congress  should  be  centrally  located. 

Speaking  of  the  punctuality  with  which  the  representatives 
and  senators  from  New  England  assembled  at  New  York,  be 
cause  of  the  facility  of  traveling  during  the  inclement  season  of 
the  year,  and  of  the  danger  that  southern  trade  might  be  sac 
rificed  to  the  local  interests  of  the  New  England  states,  another 
correspondent  of  the  Packet  says :  "Nothing  can  prevent  this 
but  a  central  residence  of  Congress  which  shall  favor  equally  the 
early  and  punctual  attendance  of  every  member  of  Congress. 
Philadelphia  or  Baltimore  should  be  preferred  to  New  York. 
If  they  are  not,  in  the  first  session  of  Congress  it  will  lay  a  foun 
dation  of  animosities  that  no  government  can  prevent  or  heal."14 

Another  correspondent  fears  that  British  influence  will  pre 
vail  if  our  government  meets  in  any  place  where  English  inter 
ests  are  as  strong  as  they  are  in  New  York.  "Great  Britain 
can  never  be  indifferent  to  our  prosperity.  The  same  spirit  which 
actuated  her  councils  during  the  war  governs  them  in  peace. 
That  situation,  therefore,  which  connects  the  United  States 
most  with  Great  Britain  will  always  be  improper  for  the  resi 
dence  of  Congress.  If  there  is  a  city  in  the  Union  in  which 
an  attachment  to  British  manners  and  customs  predominates — 
if  in  that  city  half  the  principal  people  have  sons  or  brothers  now 
supported  by  royal  pensions  in  Great  Britain,  certainly  Congress 
should  avoid  that  place  if  they  wish  to  establish  Republican 
manners  in  the  United  States."15 

In  reply  to  the  objections  made  against  the  high  salaries  paid 
to  members  of  Congress  and  the  officers  of  the  new  government, 
"A  Traveller,"  writing  in  the  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  says  that 
something  is  to  be  said  in  favor  of  our  rulers.  "They  sit  in  a 
town  filled  chiefly  with  the  friends  and  adherents  of  Great  Brit 
ain  who  constantly  buzz  in  their  ears  British  ideas  of  salaries, 
rank,  dress,  and  equipage,  and  which,  from  the  want  of  better 


"Ibid.,  March  17,  1789. 

16  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  May  7,  1789. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  109 

information,  our  delegates  mistake  for  the  sense  of  the  United 
States.  The  newspapers,  which  in  other  states  are  the  vehicles 
of  the  opinions  and  complaints  of  the  people,  will  never  con 
tain  original  strictures  upon  any  of  the  Acts  of  Congress  while 
the  citizens  of  New  York  make  the  residence  of  Congress  among 
them  their  first  object.  These  considerations  show  the  necessity 
of  Congress  immediately  fixing  upon  a  place  of  permanent  resi 
dence,  otherwise  our  liberties  may  be  sacrificed  to  the  hospitable 
cards  and  tea-parties  of  the  citizens  of  New  York."16 

"A  Late  Traveller"  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
price  of  boarding  in  New  York  is  nearly  twice  as  high  as  it  is 
in  Philadelphia,  in  part  due  to  the  fact  that  New  York  is  only 
half  as  large  as  Philadelphia.  This  is  a  substantial  reason  why 
Congress  should  reside  in  Philadelphia.  It  ought  to  be  remem 
bered  that  the  board  of  the  members  of  Congress  is  to  be  paid 
out  of  a  common  treasury  and,  of  course,  that  every  citizen 
the  United  States  must  pay  his  proportion  of  it.17 

The  question  of  the  location  of  the  national  capital  also  called 
forth  an  extensive  pamphlet  by  "A  Citizen  of  Philadelphia"18 
who  argued  at  length  in  favor  of  postponing  the  ultimate  de 
cision  and  urged  the  choice  of  Philadelphia  as  a  temporary  seat 
of  the  government.  He  held  that  an  immediate  decision  upon 
the  permanent  residence  of  Congress  would  be  very  "improper" 
for  the  following  reasons:  (1)  Adequate  buildings  for  the  ac 
commodation  of  Congress  are  already  to  be  had  in  Philadelphia, 
and  there  is  at  present  no  money  to  spare  for  the  erection  of 
new  ones.  In  the  present  state  of  the  finances  and  with  the  nu 
merous  demands  being  made  on  the  treasury,  the  country  is  in 
no  condition  to  expend  such  sums  of  money  as  would  be  required 
to  buy  the  ground  and  erect  the  buildings  necessary  for  a  new 
capitol.  The  claims  of  the  nation's  creditors,  both  foreign  and 
domestic,  should  be  satisfied  with  the  first  money  that  can  be 
raised.  Whatever  may  be  the  feeling  about  the  purchasers  of 


10  Ibid.,  August  19,  1789. 

17  Ibid.,  May  13,  1789. 

18  An  Essay  on  the  Seat  of  the  Federal  Government,  Philadelphia,  1789. 


110  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

alienated  certificates,  there  is  no  doubt  about  the  claims  of  the 
original  holders,  and  they  should  come  first.  (2)  Debates  on 
the  subject  in  Congress  have  brought  out  great  differences  of 
opinion  as  to  geographical  questions,  and  it  is  evident  that  the 
internal  geography  of  the  country  is  not  definitely  enough  known 
to  make  it  possible  to  decide  upon  a  central  location  for  the  gov 
ernment.  (3)  Four  or  five  new  states  are  soon  to  be  added  to  the 
Union,  and  questions  affecting  the  whole  nation  should  not  be 
decided  until  their  admission.  (4)  In  the  late  discussions  in 
Congress,  two  parties  have  appeared  which  are  nearly  equal  in 
number,  and  which  have  contradictory  views  as  to  the  proper 
location  of  the  capital.  Such  a  division,  if  allowed  to  continue, 
may  "destroy  mutual  confidence  and  lessen  our  unanimity  in 
matters  having  no  connection  with  the  seat  of  government." 
But  time  may  modify  these  conflicting  opinions.  (5)  In  locating 
the  capital,  the  geographical  center  of  population,  not  of  terri 
tory,  should  be  sought  for,  and  this  will  be  a  shifting  point  for 
some  time  to  come.  (6)  Congress  should  be  situated  where  ac 
commodations  are  best  and  where  foreign  and  domestic  news 
can  be  most  easily  obtained.  "I  think,"  says  the  writer,  "we 
might  as  well  immure  them  [the  members  of  Congress]  in  the 
bottom  of  a  well  or  shut  them  up  in  a  cave,  where  they  would  be 
effectually  cut  off  from  all  intelligence  of  the  world,  as  to  place 
them  within  the  desert  dreary  fogs  and  disheartening  agues  of 
either  the  Potomac  or  Susquehannah,  where  there  is  nothing 
grand  and  majestic  to  be  seen  but  the  ice  and  floods  and  noth 
ing  lively  to  be  heard  or  felt  but  musketoes." 

The  author  then  urges  the  following  considerations  in  favor 
of  the  choice  of  Philadelphia,  at  least  as  a  temporary  site,  in 
preference  to  any  other  location  for  the  capitol :  (1)  Phila 
delphia  is  as  near  the  geographical  center  as  any  place  which  is 
capable  of  accommodating  Congress,  and  it  will  continue  so  for 
a  long  time.  (2)  It  is  the  greatest  center  of  wealth,  trade,  and 
navigation  in  the  United  States.  News,  both  foreign  and  do 
mestic,  may  easily  be  obtained  there.  (3)  It  is  easily  fortified, 
affords  splendid  anchorage,  and  is  protected  from  all  winds, 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  111 

tides,  and  storms.  (4)  Plenty  of  timber,  iron  and  other  stores 
for  building,  rigging  and  repairing  ships,  together  with  the  food 
necessary  for  provisioning  them,  and  the  seamen  to  man  them, 
are  always  available  in  the  vicinity  of  Philadelphia.  (5)  "The 
climate  is  temperate,  the  air  good,  the  spring  and  fall  are  delight 
ful,  the  winters  mostly  moderate,  with  no  more  snow  or  frost 
than  is  necessary  for  the  convenience  of  the  inhabitants  and  the 
growth  of  vegetables ;  the  heat  of  summer  is  rarely  intense,  and 
if  at  any  time  it  becomes  violent  it  seldom  lasts  long;  it  is  very 
uncommon  to  have  the  mercury  at  90  degrees." 

With  pardonable  exaggeration  the  author  continues  to  sing 
the  praises  of  his  city,  and  all  objections  to  it  seem  to  him  in 
significant.  "When  compared  with  any  of  them,"  he  says,  "it 
has  more  houses,  more  inhabitants,  more  riches,  more  churches, 
and  more  play-houses,  and  quite  as  much,  though  perhaps  some 
what  less  sociability,  more  punctuality  in  payments,  which 
is  some  indication  of  honesty."  And  if  any  object  that  the 
presence  of  ice  hinders  navigation  in  the  river  for  two  months  in 
the  year,  it  may  be  replied  that  in  winter  ships  are  rarely  at  sea 
and  that  in  any  case  they  soon  find  a  harbor  in  Chesapeake  Bay 
or  in  New  York.  And  if  any  feel  that  the  population  is  too  large, 
he  must  bear  in  mind  that  wherever  the  seat  of  the  government 
is,  there  will  a  large  population  congregate,  and  the  difficulty 
could  only  be  avoided  by  frequent  removals.  And  finally,  if  any 
one  fear  that  "the  various  allurements  and  pleasures  of  the  place 
are  apt  to  divert  some  of  their  numbers  from  their  attention  to 
the  public  business  and  their  duty  in  the  house,"  it  may  be  an 
swered  that  this  cannot  be  remedied  by  running  away  from  the 
mischief,  but  by  imposing  severe  laws  on  their  own  members, 
and  by  rigidly  punishing  and  even  expelling  such  as  are  guilty  of 
any  scandalous  practices  which  corrupt  their  morals  or  councils 
or  such  who,  on  any  account  neglect  their  attendance  and  duty 
in  the  House." 

(b)  The  Democratic  Societies  and  the  Whiskey  Rebellion 
Although  proof  has  never  been  adduced  that  the  Democratic 


112  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

Societies  of  Pennsylvania  had  any  direct  connection  with  the 
Whiskey  Rebellion,  many  respectable  citizens  agreed  with  Presi 
dent  Washington  in  his  belief  that  they  were  really  responsible 
for  it,  and  during  the  excitement  caused  by  that  insurrection,  the 
Societies  themselves  became  a  political  issue  of  great  importance, 
and  many  bitter  attacks  were  directed  against  them. 

The  Democratic  Society  of  Pennsylvania,19  the  first  organiza 
tion  of  its  kind  in  the  United  States,  was  established  at  Philadel 
phia  in  1793  in  imitation  of  the  Jacobin  Club  in  Paris.  The  fol 
lowing  quotation  from  .the  Principles  and  Regulations  of  the 
Society20  sets  forth  the  reasons  for  its  formation :  "With  a 
view  to  cultivate  a  just  knowledge  of  rational  liberty,  to  facilitate 
the  enjoyment  and  exercise  of  our  civil  rights  and  to  transmit 
unimpaired  to  posterity  the  glorious  inheritance  of  a  free  Repub 
lican  government,  the  Democratic  Society  of  Pennsylvania  is 
constituted  and  established.  Unfettered  by  religious  or  national 
distinctions,  unbiased  by  party  and  unmoved  by  ambition,  this 
institution  embraces  the  interest  and  invites  the  support  of  every 
virtuous  citizen.  The  public  good  is  indeed  its  sole  object."  The 
fundamental  principles  of  the  association  were  declared  to  be  as 
follows:  (1)  "That  the  People  have  the  inherent  and  exclusive 
right  and  power  of  making  and  altering  forms  of  government 
and  that,  for  regulating  and  protecting  our  social  interests,  a 
Republican  government  is  the  most  natural  and  beneficial  form 
which  the  wisdom  of  Man  has  devised."  (2)  "That  the  Republi 
can  Constitutions  of  the  United  States  and  the  state  of  Penn 
sylvania,  being  framed  and  established  by  the  people,  it  is  our 
duty  as  good  citizens  to  support  them.  And  in  order  to  do  so, 
it  is  likewise  the  duty  of  every  Freeman  to  regard  with  attention 
and  to  discuss  without  fear,  the  conduct  of  the  public  Servants  in 
every  department  of  the  government." 

The  Rules  and  Regulations  provided  that  there  should  be  one 
society  in  Philadelphia  and  one  in  each  county  of  the  state. 


19  See  above,  chapter  III. 

20  Principles,  Articles  and  Regulations  agreed  upon  by  the  members  of 
the  Democratic  Society  of  Pennsylvania,  May  30,  1793,  Philadelphia,  1793. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801          113 

Stated  meetings  were  to  be  held  the  first  Thursday  in  every 
month,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  Society  met  almost  every  week. 
New  members  were  to  be  admitted  and  officers  elected  by  ballot, 
a  majority  of  the  votes  of  the  members  present  being  in  all  cases 
decisive.  No  new  member  could  be  balloted  upon  at  the  same 
meeting  at  which  he  was  proposed.  Every  new  member  was  re 
quired  to  subscribe  to  the  constitution  and  to  pay  an  entrance  fee 
of  fifty  cents  to  the  treasurer. 

The  officers  were  a  president,  two  vice-presidents,  two  sec 
retaries,  a  treasurer,  and  a  corresponding  committee  of  five  mem 
bers  whose  duty  it  was  to  keep  in  touch  with  the  other  Societies 
in  the  country  and  to  lay  the  results  before  the  Society.  David 
Rittenhouse  was  the  first  president  of  the  Society,  and  Benjamin 
Franklin  Bache,  editor  of  the  Aurora,  was  a  member  of  the  Cor 
responding  Committee.  Among  the  other  members  were  Stephen 
Girard,  Eleazer  Oswald,  editor  of  the  Independent  Gazetteer,  and 
Clement  Biddle.  In  the  summer  of  1794,  the  Society  was  given 
a  room  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  where  its  subsequent 
meetings  were  held. 

In  true  French  Jacobin  style  the  use  of  all  titles  was  re 
nounced  in  the  following  resolution  of  March  27,  1794:  "Re 
solved  that  the  appellation  'Citizen'  shall,  exclusively  of  all  titles, 
be  used  in  the  correspondence  of  this  Society,  that  the  usual  for 
mulae  at  the  bottom  of  a  letter  shall  be  suppressed,  and  that  all 
letters  shall  be  dated  from  the  Era  of  American  Independence.21 

Intimate  relations  were  early  established  between  the  Demo 
cratic  Society  and  the  German  Republican  Society,  another  Phila 
delphia  organization  which  had  been  formed  to  support  the  rights 
of  man  and  espouse  the  French  cause.  On  February  20,  1794,  a 
communication  was  received  from  the  president  of  the  German 
Republican  Society  to  the  effect  that  as  long  as  the  two  organiza 
tions  were  founded  on  the  same  principles  and  had  the  same  ob 
jects  in  view  their  intentions  could  "be  better  promoted  and  a 
greater  energy  given  to  their  exertions  by  the  establishment  of  a 


Manuscript   Minutes  of  the   Democratic    Society,  pp.   62-63. 


114  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

mutual  correspondence  and  a  concurrent  operation."  The  Demo 
cratic  Society  cordially  accepted  this  invitation  and,  on  March 
6,  resolved  unanimously  to  unite  with  the  German  Society  in 
any  measures  deemed  proper  to  promote  the  public  welfare.22 

An  amusing  parody  on  the  resolutions  of  the  Democratic  So 
cieties  was  contributed  by  "Ironicus"  to  the  Gazette  of  the  United 
States  on  January  30,  1794: 

"Whereas  the  government  of  the  United  States  from  which 
the  people  were  led  to  expect  great  and  manifold  blessings  hath 
now  been  nearly  five  years  in  operation  and  whereas  the  public 
expectation  hath  been  entirely  disappointed  and  defeated  in  re 
spect  to  said  government — by  the  continuance  of  anarchy,  con 
fusion  and  discord  among  the  people — by  the  prostration  of  the 
public  credit  and  the  decline  and  contraction  of  commerce — the 
discouragement  of  agriculture,  the  depression  of  mechanic  arts — 
the  reduction  of  the  value  of  ships,  houses,  lands,  cattle,  lumber, 
grain  and  other  produce  of  the  farming  interest — by  the  stagna 
tion  of  domestic  intercourse,  particularly  the  embarrassments  on 
the  coasting  trade — by  the  destruction  of  mutual  confidence  be 
tween  man  and  man — by  the  apathy  and  indifference  which  hath 
seized  on  all  the  interprizing  faculties  of  our  citizens,  mani 
fested  in  a  total  dereliction  of  all  plans  for  the  improvement  of 
our  roads,  and  facilitating  by  bridges  and  canals,  internal  com 
munications — by  the  total  defection  of  all  the  tried  patriots  of  the 
United  States  from  those  principles  which  actuated  them  'in  the 
times,  that  tried  men's  souls'  by  placing  the  administration  of 
public  affairs  in  the  hands  of  men  who,  though  they  have  braved 
death  in  every  form  to  secure  the  liberties  and  independence  of 
the  United  States,  are  now  lost  to  every  sense  of  the  blessings 
they  fought  and  conquered  to  obtain  and  from  being  patriots  are 
transferred  to  parricides. 

"Therefore  for  the  remedy  of  all  these  and  many  other  evils 
seen,  felt  and  groaned  under  from  Georgia  to  New  Hampshire 
— be  it  known,  that  one  general  and  universal  change  ought  to 


'American  Daily  Advertiser,  March  15,  1794. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  115 

take  place — revolution  is  the  word — Revolve,  revolve,  revolve, 
till  all  the  pleasing,  comforting,  heart-consoling  and  exhilarating 
delights  of  capsizing,  topsy-turvying,  undermining,  disjointing 
and  overthrowing  all  the  systems,  principles  and  practices  of  this 
wretched  country  are  fully  realized  and  enjoyed  until 

"Those  who  are  in, 
No  longer  shall  grin ; 
And  those  who  are  out, 
No  longer  shall  pout." 

Apart  from  the  foregoing  satire,  the  Democratic  Society  ap 
pears  to  have  received  the  compliment  of  but  slight  attention 
from  the  Philadelphia  newspapers  before  the  outbreak  of  the 
Whiskey  Rebellion  in  western  Pennsylvania.  The  situation  be 
came  very  different,  however,  when  on  November  19,  1794, 
Washington  sent  the  message  to  Congress  in  which  he  charged 
that  the  insurrection  had  "been  fomented  by  combinations  of 
men,  who,  careless  of  consequences,  and  disregarding  the  un 
erring  truth  that  those  who  rouse  cannot  always  appease  a  civil 
convulsion,  have  disseminated  from  an  ignorance  or  perversion 
of  facts,  suspicions,  jealousies,  and  accusations,  of  the  whole 
government."23  This  was  generally  understood  to  be  an  attack 
upon  the  Democratic  Societies  of  the  country  and  particularly 
upon  the  two  organizations  in  Philadelphia.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
although  both  the  Democratic  and  the  German  Republican  So 
cieties  regarded  the  excise  as  an  unconstitutional  and  dangerous 
measure,  they  both  denied  any  connection  with  the  insurrection 
itself. 

On  July  31,  1794,  the  Democratic  Society  passed  a  resolution 
to  the  effect  that  "although  we  conceive  Excise  systems  to  be  op 
pressively  hostile  to  the  liberties  of  this  country  and  a  nursery 
of  vice  and  sycophancy,  we,  notwithstanding,  highly  disapprove 
of  every  opposition  to  them,  not  warranted  by  that  frame  of 
government  which  has  received  the  sanction  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States."  It  was  further  resolved  "that  we  will  use  our  ut- 


23  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  Ed.  J.  D.  Richardson  (Wash 
ington,  1897),  vol.  I,  p.  166. 


116  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

most  efforts  to  effect  a  repeal  of  the  Excise  laws  by  constitutional 
means ;  that  we  will  at  all  times  make  legal  opposition  to  every 
measure  which  shall  endanger  the  freedom  of  our  country — but 
that  we  will  bear  testimony  against  every  unconstitutional  at 
tempt  to  prevent  the  execution  of  any  law  sanctioned  by  the  ma 
jority  of  the  people."24 

It  is  noteworthy  that,  moderate  as  these  resolutions  seem, 
some  members  of  the  Society,  not  present  when  they  were 
adopted,  disapproved  of  them  and  feared  disastrous  conse 
quences;  and  a  motion  was  later  passed  that  a  committee  be  ap 
pointed  to  write  to  the  Democratic  Societies  west  of  the  moun 
tains  concerning  the  resolutions,  assuring  them  of  the  parent 
Society's  disapproval  of  any  unlawful  measures.25  The  letter 
drafted  by  this  committee  to  the  Democratic  Society  of  Wash 
ington  County  was  reported  to  and  approved  by  the  Philadelphia 
Society  on  August  14,  1794,  and  has  been  preserved  in  the  min 
utes.  It  reads  in  part  as  follows  :  "Friends  and  Fellow  Citizens  : 
We  beg  you  to  accept  our  condolence  for  the  lives  that  have  al 
ready  been  lost  on  the  present  unhappy  occasion,  and  we  sin 
cerely  hope  that  matters  may  be  accommodated  without  the 
further  effusion  of  human  blood  or  the  destruction  of  property. 
With  regard  to  the  law  which  has  given  birth  to  so  much  general 
uneasiness  .  .  .  fancy  wants  a  figure  and  language  words  to 
convey  our  detestation  of  Excise-systems  in  this  country.  .  . 
[In  every  instance  where  an  excise  law  has  been  adopted] 
poverty,  wretchedness,  slavery  and  corruption  among  the  people 
have  been  the  invariable  consequences.  .  .  [But,  neverthe 
less]  let  us  endeavor  to  apply  a  constitutional  remedy  to  the 
evil  by  obtaining  a  repeal  of  the  law.  In  the  meantime,  Fellow- 
Citizens,  we  earnestly  recommend  prudence  and  moderation."26 

On  September  11,  the  Philadelphia  Society  passed  a  resolu 
tion  approving  of  the  "moderate,  prudent  and  republican  conduct 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  the  Governor  of 


24  Manuscript  Minutes,  p.   131. 

25  Ibid.,  pp.  133-134. 
™Ibid.,  pp.  136-137. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  117 

Pennsylvania  in  pursuing  the  plan  of  pacification  with  the  wes 
tern  people,  an  appeal  to  the  reason  of  freeman  being  more 
consonant  with  the  principles  of  liberty  than  the  argument  of 
immediate  coercion."  And  it  was  further  resolved  "that  we 
fully  concur  in  the  sentiment  that  the  strength  of  the  state  ought 
to  be  exerted  should  the  power  of  reason  prove  inadequate  with 
the  Western  citizens." 

These  resolutions  in  support  of  the  government  were  adopted 
without  opposition.  It  was  a  very  different  thing,  however,  to 
condemn  the  rebels,  when  a  third  resolution  was  proposed,  "That 
the  intemperance  of  the  Western  Citizens  in  not  accepting  the 
equitable  and  pacific  proposals  made  to  them  by  the  government 
augurs  an  enmity  to  the  genuine  principles  of  freedom  and  that 
such  an  outrage  upon  order  and  democracy.  .  .  will  merit 
the  proscription  of  every  friend  to  equal  liberty;"  it  gave  rise  to 
more  than  a  warm  debate.  The  president  of  the  Society  left  his 
chair  and  with  a  number  of  members  withdrew  from  the  room. 
Some  thirty  members  remained  with  Benjamin  F.  Bache  in  the 
chair,  and  after  extended  discussion  decided  to  withdraw  the 
resolution.27 

Although  evidence  was  lacking  to  prove  that  the  Democratic 
Societies  were  responsible  for  the  Whiskey  Rebellion,  the  Fed 
eralists  tried  to  use  the  Rebellion  as  a  pretext  for  breaking  them 
up.  This  is  shown  in  the  following  address  issued  by  the  So 
ciety  of  Philadelphia  to  the  other  Societies  of  the  United 
States  :28 

"Sensations  of  the  most  unpleasant  kind  must  have  been  ex 
perienced  by  every  reflecting  person  who  is  not  leagued  against  the 
liberties  of  this  country,  on  hearing  and  reading  the  various 
charges  and  invectives  fabricated  for  the  destruction  of  the  Pa 
triotic  Societies  in  America.  So  indefatigable  are  the  aristo 
cratic  faction  among  us  in  disseminating  principles  unfriendly 
to  the  rights  of  man — at  the  same  time  so  artful  as  to  envelop 
their  machinations  with  the  garb  of  patriotism,  that  it  is  much 


27  Ibid.,  pp.  143-146. 

28  November  27,  1794.     Ibid.t  pp.  163-170. 


118  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

to  be  feared  unless  vigilance,  union  and  firmness  mark  the  con 
duct  of  all  real  friends  to  equal  liberty,  their  combinations  and 
schemes  will  have  their  desired  effect. 

"The  enemies  of  Liberty  and  Equality  have  never  ceased  to 
traduce  us — even  certain  influential  and  public  characters  have 
ventured  to  publicly  condemn  all  political  societies.  When  de 
nunciations  of  this  kind  are  presented  to  the  world,  supported  by 
the  influence  of  character  and  great  names,  they  too  frequently 
obtain  a  currency  which  they  are  by  no  means  entitled  to  either 
on  the  score  of  justice,  property  or  even  common  sense. 

"Unfortunately,  a  favorable  circumstance  for  the  designs  of 
aristocracy  lately  took  place — we  mean  an  insurrection  in  the 
western  counties  of  this  state.  The  executive,  however,  by 
marching  an  army  into  that  country,  many  of  whom  were  mem 
bers  of  this  and  other  political  societies  soon  obliged  those  people 
to  acknowledge  obedience  to  the  laws.  .  .  .  There  are  not 
wanting  some  in  administration  who  are  attempting  to  persuade 
the  people  into  a  belief  that  the  insurrection  was  encouraged 
and  abetted  by  the  wicked  designs  of  certain  self-created  so 
cieties — that  no  cause  of  discontent  with  respect  to  the  laws  or 
administration  could  reasonably  exist.  Is  it  not  an  indisputable 
fact  that  the  complaints  of  the  western  people  against  the  excise 
law  have  sounded  in  the  ears  of  Congress  for  sometime  before  the 
existence  of  the  present  Patriotic  Societies?" 

The  Society  also  issued  an  address,  December  18,  1794,  to 
its  "Fellow  Citizens  of  the  United  States,"  which  refers  quite 
definitely  to  the  attack  made  upon  it  in  the  President's  message : 

"The  principles  and  proceedings  of  our  Association  have 
lately  been  calumniated.  We  should  think  ourselves  unworthy 
to  be  ranked  as  freeman,  if,  awed  by  the  name  of  any  man,  how 
ever  he  may  command  the  public  gratitude  for  past  services,  we 
could  suffer  in  silence  so  sacred  a  right,  so  important  a  principle, 
as  the  freedom  of  opinion  to  be  infringed  by  an  attack  on  So 
cieties  which  stand  on  that  constitutional  basis.  .  .  . 

"If  freedom  in  the  communication  of  sentiments  by  speech  or 
through  the  press.  ...  is  the  right  of  every  citizen,  by  what 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  119 

mode  of  reasoning  can  that  right  be  denied  to  an  assemblage  of 
citizens  ?  .  and  in  the  conduct  of  this  Society  since  the 

first  establishment,  they  trust  no  instance  can  be  adduced  in 
which  they  have  overstepped  the  just  bounds  of  the  right  of 
which  they  claim  the  enjoyment." 

The  address  then  went  on  to  say  that  the  late  western  insur 
rection  has  been  taken  advantage  of  "to  cast  an  odium  on  po 
pular  Societies  and  has  been  made  the  plea  for  their  suppres 
sion.  .  .  .  The  fact  is  that  most  of  the  people  who  in  the 
western  counties  have  been  guilty  of  the  outrage  on  the  laws, 
which  every  good  citizen  must  lament,  are  too  ignorant  to  have 
been  incited  to  those  unwarrantable  measures  by  the  circulation 
of  the  sentiments  and  opinions  which  the  Democratic  Societies 
have,  from  time  to  time,  expressed  on  public  men  and  meas 
ures.  .  .  .  Indeed,  the  Great  Luminary  of  the  Anti-Demo 
cratic  party  had  declared  officially  that  the  opposition  to  the 
Excise  Law  dates  from  its  existence ;  and  it  is  well  to  know  that 
Democratic  Societies  were  not  thought  of  'till  sometime  after  the 
passing  of  that  law."29 

There  is  plenty  of  evidence  to  show  that  the  excise  troubles 
antedate  the  rise  of  the  Democratic  Societies.  An  article  in 
the  Gazette  of  the  United  States  for  September  26,  1792,  com 
plained  that  the  people  on  the  frontier  had  not  paid  a  state  tax 
since  the  Revolution  and  that  they  would  not  pay  the  excise 
except  under  compulsion.  "Tis  not  this,  that  or  the  other  mode 
of  revenue,"  said  the  writer,  "which  they  would  oppose,  but  the 
payment  of  any  and  all  public  dues.  Not  to  execute  the  laws 
among  such  people,  would  be  to  abandon  the  maintenance  of 
civil  society  and  to  reduce  a  free  and  civilized  nation  to  a  state 
of  nature." 

Various  other  articles  appeared  in  the  newspapers  of  the 
next  two  years  which  were  severely  critical  of  the  people  of 
western  Pennsylvania.  A  correspondent  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Gazette30  advised  them  to  consider  well  their  conduct,  since  from 


a9  Manuscript  Minutes,  pp.  174-184. 
30  August  20,  1794. 


120  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

north  to  south  there  was  but  one  opinion  regarding  their  late 
proceedings,  and  that  opinion  was  against  them.  "For  how 
ever  divided  [men  might  be]  respecting  the  utility  of  an  excise, 
all  unite  in  reprobating  measures  which  strike  at  the  existence  of 
Society,  and  lay  the  ax  to  the  root  of  all  the  blessings  of  peace, 
liberty  and  safety." 

"A  Citizen,"  addressing  a  communication  to  "The  Enemies 
of  Anarchy,"  expressed  the  opinion  that  anti-federalism  was  at 
the  basis  of  the  insurrection.  "It  requires  not  the  spirit  of  in 
spiration,"  he  said,  "to  foretell  that  the  government  of  the  United 
States  is  the  object  of  the  insurgents.  To  be  convinced  of  this, 
it  is  only  necessary  for  those  who  doubt  to  look  into  the  charac 
ters  of  the  leaders,  and  they  will  soon  discover  that  the  whiskey 
is  only  given  out  for  the  purpose  of  intoxicating  the  multitude 
and  that  anti-federalism  will  be  their  order  of  march. 
If  government  in  any  form  is  considered  as  a  blessing  to  the 
governed,  the  friends  of  our  government  ought  to  act  with 
unanimity  and  firmness  on  the  present  occasion."31 

(c)  Titles 

The  question  of  titles  was  another  issue  which  gave  rise  to 
much  public  discussion,  and  the  advocates  of  democratic  sim 
plicity  were  very  much  exercised  over  the  prospect  of  their  use. 
The  well-known  debate  on  this  question  in  Congress  early  in 
January,  1795,  was  echoed  in  the  newspapers. 

As  early  as  1789  a  correspondent  of  the  Pennsylvania  Ga 
zette*2  compliments  Congress  on  the  good  sense  and  indepen 
dence  of  European  monarchical  customs  which  it  has  shown  in 
refusing  to  give  titles  to  the  President  and  Vice-President.  He 
thinks  them  "only  calculated  to  please  children  and  fools,"  and 
he  would  be  much  pleased  if  "the  promiscuous  use  of  the  titles 
Honorable,  Worshipful,  etc.,  was  banished  from  our  legislatures 
and  courts.  They  smell  of  the  corruption  of  European  govern 
ment." 


81  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  August  27,  1794. 
"May  13,  1789. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  121 

The  celebrations  and  festivities  all  over  the  country  on  the 
occasion  of  the  birthday  of  Washington  in  1791  and  the  atten 
tion  given  to  the  day  in  the  newspapers  was  very  displeasing  to 
one  of  the  subscribers  to  the  Aurora.'33  He  writes  of  the  dem 
onstrations  as  follows :  "Though  we  admire  the  character  of 
our  Illustrious  Personage,  the  anniversary  of  whose  Birth  is  thus 
celebrated,  yet  we  cannot  but  think  that  this  mode  of  expressing 
our  gratitude  for  the  services  of  any  individual,  however  great 
his  deserts,  possesses  too  strong  a  tincture  of  Monarchy  to  be 
adopted  by  Republicans.  Let  us  rejoice  at  the  birthday  of  our 
Empire ;  let  us  keep  it  as  a  day  of  Joy  and  Thanks,  but  let  the 
Birthdays  of  Presidents  be  blotted  from  the  Calender  of  Feasts." 

Benjamin  Franklin  Bache,  the  editor  of  the  Aurora,  was  es 
pecially  vigorous  in  expressing  his  abhorrence  of  the  pomp  and 
pageantry  of  monarchy.  On  one  occasion  he  expresses  his  feel 
ings  as  follows  :  "It  is  grateful  to  a  heart  anxious  for  the  hap 
piness  of  mankind  to  observe  the  rapid  progress  of  the  principles 
of  the  American  and  French  Revolutions.  ...  to  find  that 
almost  wherever  the  book  the  the  High  Priest  of  Ecclesiastical 
Establishments  and  the  Right  Honorable  Solicitor  General  for 
the  claims  of  despotism  is  read,  its  doctrines  and  maxims  are 
regarded  with  superlative  contempt."34 

And  in  reply  to  an  article  in  the  Gazette  of  the  United  States 
which  had  advocated  the  use  of  certain  official  titles,  the  same 
editor  says  :  "Does  not  the  name  of  the  office  convey  an  idea  of 
the  trust  which  is  reposed  in  the  officer? — and  what  more  dig 
nified  title  could  be  bestowed  on  our  supreme  executive  Magis 
trate  than  George  Washington?  Would  the  epithet  Honor  or 
even  Excellency,  annexed  to  his  name,  express  as  much  as  his 
Name  itself?  Does  Excellency  call  to  mind  the  services  he 
has  rendered  to  his  country?  and  is  not  George  Washington 
synonymous  with  prudent  and  brave  warrior,  profound  states 
man,  defender  of  liberty,  good  citizen,  great  man?"35 


33  March  4,    1791. 
"Aurora,  June  4,  1791. 
35  Ibid.,  June  7,  1791. 


122  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

"X,"  a  contributor  of  the  Aurora,  considered  the  idea  of  an 
hereditary  nobility  as  "incompatible  with  every  law  of  nature." 
Wisdom  and  virtue,  he  argued,  are  not  qualities  which  can  be  be 
queathed  nor  inherited  from  a  parent.  "Why  then  should  no 
bility  which  is  said  to  be  the  reward  of  merit  be  inherited,  when 
merit  itself  is  not?  Had  the  creator  of  mankind  intended  that 
nobility  should  have  been  necessary  in  the  administration  of  gov 
ernment,  he  would  doubtless  have  created  a  distinct  species  of 
men,  remarkable  for  ability  and  virtue,  and  he  would  have  made 
his  hereditary  nobles  hereditarily  wise  and  good  men."36 

That  liberty  was  greatly  endangered  by  the  use  of  titles  was 
the  opinion  expressed  in  an  article  in  the  Gazette  of  the  United 
States  for  April  20,  1793.  Those  who  maintain  that  "sounds  are 
substances"  are  warned  to  be  on  the  watch  for  all  advances 
which  the  enemies  of  Liberty  may  attempt  to  make  along  that 
line.  "It  is  surprising  that  the  title  of  Reverend,  applied  to  the 
clergy,  should  have  remained  uncensured  till  lately.  But  the 
high  sounding  titles  of  the  Grand  Lodges  of  the  Free  Masons, 
with  their  Right  Worshipful  Grand  Masters  and  their  Most 
Worshipful  Grand  Secretaries  must  be  abolished  or  Liberty  will 
not  live  to  see  another  New- Year's  day." 

The  writer  of  an  anonymous  pamphlet37  in  1794  complained 
of  the  monarchical  ideas  of  Hamilton  and  his  followers  and  of  the 
use  made  by  them  of  their  party  organ,  the  Gazette  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  following  words :  "To  render  this  monarchical 
etiquette  the  more  pompous  and  to  familiarize  it  to  the  citizens, 
a  courtly  gazette  was  instituted,  which  industriously  proclaimed 
the  ideal  grandeur  of  the  court  and  published  the  names  and 
rank  of  all  the  most  honorable  personages,  both  male  and  fe 
male,  who  graced  it  with  their  presence."  "When  Washington 
was  commander-in-chief  of  the  army,"  he  went  on,  "it  was  his 
habit  to  set  aside  a  particular  hour  for  receiving  visitors,  when 
his  officers  and  any  other  persons  so  desiring  might  consult  with 
him.  When  he  came  to  the  presidential  chair,  he  introduced 


"Ibid.,  June  10,  1791. 

87  "A  Citizen,"  A  Review  of  the  Revenue  System.     Letter  XII. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  123 

the  same  custom  and  probably  never  would  have  offended  the 
most  scrupulous  republican,  if  the  monarchical  order  had  not 
metamorphosed  it  into  a  courtly  levee,  and  if  the  courtly  gazette, 
faithful  to  its  trust,  had  not  proclaimed  it  to  the  world  in  the 
pompous  stile  of  St.  James  or  Versailles."  The  purpose  of 
these  monarchical  tendencies,  the  pamphleteer  continued,  was  to 
turn  the  attention  of  the  people  away  from  the  activities  of  the 
Government.  "The  monarchical  faction  vainly  thought  that  by 
apeing  the  courts  of  Europe,  they  would  strike  the  people  with 
awe  and  that,  by  the  splendour  of  the  court,  the  attention  of  the 
people  would  be  diverted  from  the  measures  of  the  Administra 
tion." 

The  Democratic  Society,  of  course  held  in  abhorrence  all 
titles  or  other  insignia  of  courts.  On  January  9,  1794,  it  passed 
the  following  motion :  "Resolved,  that  we  differ  in  opinion 
from  those  who  imagine  that  the  rulers  of  a  republic  may  con 
ciliate  the  favor  of  monarchs  and  despotic  courts  by  assuming 
courtly  forms,  etiquettes  and  manners ;  that  republics  are  held 
in  detestation  by  despotic  governments  not  on  account  of  their 
manners  but  of  their  principles."38 

(d)  Election  Methods  and  Political  Campaigns 

Partisan  feeling,  however  high  it  may  have  run  at  certain 
crises,  did  not  save  the  country  in  the  Federalist  period  from  the 
besetting  difficulty  of  almost  all  democracies,  the  apathy  of  the 
electorate.  And  the  newspapers  of  Philadelphia  freely  per 
formed  the  function  then  as  now  of  reminding  Demos  of  his 
shortcomings.  A  correspondent  of  the  Pennsylvania  Gazette  for 
January  7,  1789,  notes  that  the  severity  of  the  weather  had  been 
advanced  as  the  reason  for  the  poor  attendance  at  the  recent 
town-meeting  to  choose  representatives  in  Congress.  But,  says 
he,  "the  chilling  frosts  of  winter  are  but  trifling  compared  to  the 
consequences  which  will  result  from  choosing  men  to  govern  us 
who  are  unworthy  of  our  trust  and  confidence." 

Another   correspondent   of   the   same   journal   laments   that, 


38  Manuscript  Minutes,  pp.  37-38. 


124  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

"according  to  the  present  statement  of  votes  given  in,  it  does  not 
appear  that  more  than  half  the  citizens  of  this  state  have  paid 
the  proper  attention  to  the  darling  privilege  of  choosing  their 
own  rulers."  "Lethargy,"  he  says,  "is  not  becoming  the  spirit  of 
a  free  and  independent  people,"  and  he  goes  on  to  complain  that 
in  some  of  the  counties  anti- federal  sheriffs  have  resorted  to  il 
legal  means  to  defeat  the  purposes  of  the  people  in  the  recent  elec 
tions.  The  returns  for  federal  representatives  from  some  of  the 
counties,  instead  of  being  made  in  ten  days,  had  been  kept  back 
for  four  weeks ;  and  those  for  electors  of  a  President  and  Vice- 
President  had  not  yet  been  made  made  from  all  the  counties  on 
February  4,  1789.  "Shall  a  few  anti-federal  sheriffs,"  he  de 
mands,  "be  suffered  with  impunity  thus  to  trample  on  the  laws 
and  render  the  federal  state  of  Pennsylvania  the  scoff  of  the 
Union  ?"39 

Nine  years  later,  we  find  a  writer  in  Porcupine's  Gazette40 
complaining  of  the  same  indifference  on  the  part  of  the  electors. 
"If,"  says  he,  "it  were  ever  necessary  for  the  friends  of  the  fed 
eral  government,  of  order,  security  of  property  and  personal 
safety  to  exercise  their  franchise  and  bring  their  influence  to  bear 
at  the  elections,  it  is  now."  The  Quakers  have  been  particularly 
blameworthy  in  this  respect.  Their  religious  scruples  have  been 
given  as  the  reason;  "but  what  man  is  there  whose  conscience 
can  forbid  him  to  do  good  and  to  prevent  evil,  when  it  is  in 
his  power  and  when  he  can  employ  that  power  in  a  fair,  honest 
and  legal  way.  .  .  .  William  Penn,  the  venerable  founder 
of  this  state  and  the  ornament  of  their  society,  ....  this 
pattern  of  Excellence,  as  he  has  ever  been  held,  did  not  think  it 
wrong  to  vote  at  elections ;  on  the  contrary,  he  called  on  all  free 
holders  to  do  so  and  that  too,  in  times,  not  unlike  the  present  as 
far  as  the  affairs  of  a  kingdom  and  a  republic  can  approach  to 
a  resemblance.  He  who  will  not,  to  support  the  government, 
take  the  pains  to  put  a  word  upon  a  piece  of  paper  and  carry 


39  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  February  11,  1789. 

40  February  20,  1798. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  125 

it  a  mile,  will  talk  to  us  in  vain  about  his  attachment  to  peace, 
order,  morality  and  religion,  all  which  depend  on  the  stability  of 
that  government  and  on  that  alone." 

The  first  presidential  conflict  between  the  Federalists  and  the 
Republicans  was  the  campaign  of  1796.  The  party  press  was 
filled  with  arguments  for  and  against  the  claims  of  Jefferson  and 
Adams.  One  of  the  strongest  presentations  of  the  case  for 
Jefferson  came  from  the  pen  of  "Cassius."41  Writing  in  the 
New  World  shortly  before  polling  day,  he  tried  to  make  the  peo 
ple  realize  the  importance  of  the  approaching  election  by  remind 
ing  them  of  the  great  powers  which  the  Constitution  vested  in 
the  President  and  of  the  enormous  influence  which  his  office  en 
abled  him  to  exert.  That  "Cassius"  did  not  regard  Washing 
ton's  administration  as  a  success  is  shown  by  the  following : 
"The  history  of  the  present  administration  proves  that  there  is 
no  measure,  however  odious  to  you  or  repugnant  to  your  consti 
tution,  which  the  authority  of  a  President  cannot  accomplish.  . 
The  history  of  the  present  administration  proves  that  there 
is  no  man,  however  contemptible  in  your  sight,  whom  a  President 
cannot  elevate  to  your  highest  offices  and  that  there  is  no  na 
tion,  however  detestable  to  you,  with  whom  a  President  cannot 
unite  you  in  the  closest  alliance.  When  I  call  your  attention  to 
the  alarming  events  of  the  present  administration,  it  is  not  with 
a  malignant  desire  to  excite  indignation  against  your  venerable 
President.  May  his  virtues  ever  be  deeply  impressed  upon  your 
grateful  hearts.  Let  his  errors  be  consigned  to  oblivion's  darkest 
cave,  never  to  return  to  light,  except  when  stern  duty  requires 
that  the  patriot  should  hold  them  up  as  awful  examples." 

Coming  to  the  respective  merits  of  the  candidates  themselves, 
"Cassius"  was  willing  to  acknowledge  the  services  of  Mr.  Adams 
to  his  country  during  the  Revolution,  and  to  admit  "that  he 
had  integrity  of  principle  until  his  residence  at  the  Court  of  St. 
James.  There  he  was  dazzled  with  the  splendor  of  royalty ; 
there  he  drank  at  the  polluted  fountain  of  political  corruption, 
there  he  prostrated  himself  at  the  shrine  of  Majesty."  The 

41  New  World,  October  28,  1796. 


126  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

writer  hints  that  if  it  were  not  for  the  deep  mystery  enveloping 
the  proceedings  of  the  Senate,  many  specific  charges  of  mis 
conduct  in  the  office  of  Vice-President  might  be  brought  against 
him.  "But  it  is  sufficient  for  you  to  know  that  he  has  supported 
every  measure  which  the  patriot  condemns,  that  he  favoured  the 
introduction  of  pompous  titles,  that  he  strenuously  labored  to 
keep  you  in  profound  ignorance  with  respect  to  the  proceedings 
of  your  own  Senate ;  that  he  negatived  the  law  prohibiting  all 
commercial  intercourse  with  Britain,  and  that  by  this  fatal  nega 
tive,  he  left  no  alternative  but  a  negotiation  which  terminated 
in  the  most  disgraceful  Treaty  which  history  records.  But  let 
us  turn  from  the  contemplation  of  this  odious  character  to  sur 
vey  Mr.  Jefferson." 

"Cassius"  then  goes  on  to  eulogize  Jefferson,  praising  his 
firmness  of  purpose,  his  bravery,  and  his  absolute  fitness  in 
every  respect  for  the  presidency.  He  says  it  is  a  fact  admitted 
by  every  candid  man,  that  America  has  only  one  enemy  among 
the  nations,  only  one  country  with  whom  we  might  engage  in 
war  and  that  is  England.  But  those  very  people  who  oppose 
Jefferson  on  the  ground  that  he  would  be  incapable  of  leading 
this  country  in  war,  are  the  very  ones  who  advocated  the  British 
Treaty  and  who  professed  absolute  confidence  in  British  faith. 
"This  party,"  he  says,  "by  expressing  an  apprehension  of  war, 
are  shameful  enough  to  stigmatize  Britain  as  a  perfidious  nation, 
whilst  their  odious  eulogium  upon  her  justice  and  benevolence 
still  resounds  upon  the  patriot's  disgusted  ear."  But  if  we  were 
to  engage  in  a  war  with  England,  would  not  Mr.  Jefferson  con 
duct  it  with  more  firmness  than  Mr.  Adams?  "Consider  the 
close  connection  that  now  exists  between  Mr.  Adams  and  the 
British  party ;  consider  how  that  connection  is  daily  strengthened 
by  congeniality  of  sentiment  and  exchange  of  benefits  and  an 
swer  the  question." 

A  series  of  articles  published  in  the  New  World  over  the  sig 
nature  of  "Federalist"  were  evidently  designed  to  further  Ham 
ilton's  scheme  of  defeating  Adams  and  electing  Pinckney.  In 
a  communication  addressed  to  the  presidential  electors,  "Fed- 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  127 

eralist"  says  that  he  wishes  to  correct  the  very  erroneous  impres 
sion  which  has  been  spread  that  Mr.  Adams  has  consistently  co 
operated  with  the  government  in  the  principal  measures  which 
have  been  enacted  since  the  adoption  of  the  constitution.  "It  is 
a  well-known  fact,  however,  that  Mr.  Adams  has  never  been  con 
sidered  or  treated  by  the  President  as  an  executive  officer.  The 
office  of  Vice-President  has  been  kept  in  a  perfectly  dormant 
state  in  an  executive  sense.  Mr.  Adams  has  not  at  all  partici 
pated  or  co-operated  in  the  executive  councils  or  business  of  the 
United  States  in  the  last  seven  years."  The  fact  that  he  is 
strongly  opposed  to  the  financial  system  of  this  country,  adopted 
by  Congress,  is  also  very  important.  He  greatly  disapproves  of 
the  funding  and  banking  systems  and  considers  them  "matters 
that  have  and  will  produce  extreme  and  extensive  ills.  .  .  . 
There  is  not  a  citizen  of  equal  consideration  in  the  United 
States  whose  sentiments  upon  the  funds  and  the  bank  are  more 
opposed  to  the  opinions  of  every  person  who  ever  has  been  or 
now  is  an  officer  of  the  Treasury  Department."  These  senti 
ments,  the  author  wishes  it  to  be  known,  "proceed  from  no  ma 
lignity  towards  Mr.  Adams  but  from  a  long-reflected  and  settled 
opinion  that  the  great  financial  operations  of  this  government 
were  wise,  necessary  and  inevitable."42 

During  the  latter  part  of  Adams's  administration,  he  became 
involved  in  a  quarrel  with  Hamilton  and  the  "Essex  Junto," 
largely  because  of  his  courage  in  insisting  upon  a  peaceful  set 
tlement  of  the  troubles  with  France.  Cobbett  and  the  Fennos,  rep 
resenting  the  extreme  Anglophile  element,  supported  Hamilton. 
"Porcupine's  Gazette  and  Fenno's  Gazette,"  says  Adams,  "from 
the  moment  of  the  mission  to  France,  aided,  countenanced  and 
encouraged  by  soi-disant  Federalists  in  Boston,  New  York,  and 
Philadelphia,  have  done  more  to  shuffle  the  cards  into  the  hands 
of  the  Jacobin  leaders  than  all  the  acts  of  administration  and  all 
the  policy  of  opposition  from  the  commencement  of  the  govern 
ment."43 


"New  World,  November  30,  1796. 

"Letter,    Adams    to    John    Trumbull,     September     10,     1800,     Adams's 
Works,  vol.  IX,  p.  83. 


128  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

The  outstanding  feature  of  the  presidential  campaign  of 
1800  was  of  course  Hamilton's  bitter  pamphlet  attacking  Adams. 
It  called  forth  a  vigorous  reply  from  Noah  Webster,  editor  of 
the  New  York  Minerva,  in  an  open  letter  to  Hamilton  in  which 
he  pointed  out  that  the  salvation  of  the  Federalist  party  in  the 
coming  election  depended  on  the  support  given  to  Adams.  "You 
boldly  assail  the  conduct  and  character  of  Mr.  Adams,"  he  said, 
"and  endeavor  to  prove  his  vanity,  self-sufficiency,  jealousy,  rash 
ness,  and  ungovernable  temper  unfit  him  for  the  station  of  Chief 
Magistrate.  The  instances  adduced  in  proof  are  mostly  of  a  pri 
vate  and  trifling  nature ;  hardly  worthy  of  being  the  subject  of 
remark  or  refutation." 

Webster  then  went  on  to  prove  that  Hamilton's  policy  and 
conduct  had  been  the  chief  source  of  the  present  divisions  among 
the  Federalists,  and  that  if  they  should  result  in  the  election  of 
an  Anti-Federalist  to  the  presidency,  the  fault  would  be  his. 
The  party  feud,  which  had  first  manifested  itself  in  1798,  was 
due  chiefly  to  two  causes:  (1)  The  proposal  of  an  offensive  and 
defensive  treaty  of  alliance  with  England,  a  plan  which  was 
defeated;  and  the  writer  admits  that  he  must  do  Hamilton  the 
justice  to  say  that  he  was  opposed  to  this  policy.  (2)  A  propo 
sal  for  the  raising  of  an  army  to  be  used  against  France.  This 
measure  was  passed  by  Congress,  and  for  it  Hamilton  was  largely 
responsible.  But  the  plan  was  never  carried  into  execution, 
thanks  to  Adams's  pursuit  of  a  pacific  policy.  And  it  was  this 
which  had  aroused  the  resentment  of  Hamilton  against  him. 
"What  extreme  indiscretion  to  undertake  an  opposition  from 
which,  in  case  of  success,  would  inevitably  result  an  irremediable 
division  of  the  federal  interest  and  in  case  of  defeat,  complete 
our  overthrow  and  ruin.  Will  not  federal  men,  as  well  as  anti- 
federal,  believe  that  your  ambition,  pride  and  overbearing  tem 
per  have  destined  you  to  be  the  evil  genius  of  this  country?" 

As  a  further  cause  of  gratitude  to  Mr.  Adams,  Webster 
urged  that  he  was  the  father  of  the  navy — a  system  of  defense 
much  cheaper,  more  effectual,  and  popular  than  Hamilton's  pro 
posed  army  plan.  "Be  assured,  Sir,  you  mistake  the  temper  of 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  129 

the  intelligent  and  hardy  freeman  of  the  United  States.  Your 
military  system,  they  will  not  bear — they  are  almost  to  a  man 
determined,  if  possible,  to  have  no  treaties  of  alliance  and  no 
permanent  military  force  beyond  what  the  frontiers  and  gar 
risons  may  require." 

Finally  it  was  Webster's  "opinion,  formed  on  thirty  years  of 
public  service,  that  Mr.  Adams  is  a  man  of  pure  morals,  of  firm 
attachment  to  a  republican  government,  of  sound  and  inflexible 
integrity  and  patriotism,  and  by  far  the  best  statesman  that  the 
late  revolution  called  into  notice."  In  Hamilton's  pretense  of 
upholding  the  honor  and  interests  of  the  United  States  by  blam 
ing  the  President  for  sending  an  embassy  to  France,  the  citizens 
of  America  would  see  only  ''the  deep  chagrin  and  disappoint 
ment  of  a  military  character,  whose  views  of  preserving  a  perma 
nent  military  force  on  foot  have  been  defeated  by  an  embassy 
which  has  removed  the  pretext  for  such  an  establishment."44 


44  "A  Federalist,"  A  Letter  to  General  Hamilton  Occasioned  by  his  Let 
ter  to  President  Adams.     Philadelphia,  1800. 


CONCLUSION 

From  the  foregoing  study  it  is  abundantly  apparent  that  life 
could  hardly  have  been  uninteresting  for  the  citizen  of  old  Phila 
delphia  in  the  Federalist  period.  Life  for  him  unquestionably 
was  lacking  in  many  of  the  comforts  of  the  twentieth  century. 
The  streets  over  which  he  was  obliged  to  travel  were  many  of 
them  unpaved  and  badly  lighted  and  at  times  well-nigh  impas 
sable.  The  sanitary  conditions  were  such  as  to  render  life  at 
best  precarious.  But  then  as  now  he  had  the  satisfaction  of  de 
nouncing  the  city  authorities  for  their  neglect  and  mismanage 
ment.  The  news  of  the  world  did  not  come  each  morning  fresh 
to  his  door  with  present  day  dispatch ;  but  newspapers  he  did 
have  in  abundance,  and  if  their  accounts  of  distant  happenings 
were  not  quite  up  to  date,  they  were  at  any  rate  well  spiced  with 
opinion.  The  pamphleteer  must  have  been  more  in  evidence  than 
he  is  today ;  and  beyond  all  question  our  citizen  was  preached  at 
on  Sundays  with  more  than  modern  violence. 

And  as  for  the  topics  of  the  day  which  occupied  his  attention, 
they  were  both  numerous  and  important.  In  1789  and  1790  the 
question  of  the  permanent  location  of  the  national  capital  was  still 
undecided ;  and  in  this  the  citizen  of  Philadelphia  had  a  deep  and 
personal  interest.  And  if  he  could  not  prevail  upon  Congress  to 
fix  its  lasting  abode  with  him,  he  could  at  least  denounce  the 
claims  of  New  York,  and  by  prudent  arguments  perhaps  gain 
for  his  city  the  coveted  honor  and  advantage  for  at  least  a  dec 
ade.  Hamilton's  great  measures  for  the  reorganization  of  the 
national  finances — the  funding  system,  the  assumption  of  state 
debts,  the  excise,  and  the  bank — claimed  his  attention  in  1790 
and  1791,  that  is,  if  he  had  any  head  for  tough  financial  prob 
lems  ;  and  if  he  found  himself  much  puzzled  over  the  merits  of 
the  issues,  at  least  he  found  his  fellow  citizens,  who  understood 
them  better  or  worse  than  he,  or  whose  material  interests  were 
involved,  very  much  aroused  and  divided.  In  1792  Hamilton's 
Opinion  on  the  Bank,  which  ascribed  such  far-reaching  powers 
to  the  federal  government  under  the  cloak  of  the  "general  wel- 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  131 

fare"  clause  of  the  constitution,  caused  grave  alarm  and  dissatis 
faction  to  many  of  his  fellow  citizens,  though  the  great  debate 
between  the  federalists  and  the  exponents  of  states  rights  was 
postponed  for  some  years  longer.  Far  greater  was  the  stir  cre 
ated  by  the  war  between  revolutionary  France  and  the  mon 
archies  of  old  Europe  in  1793.  Washington's  proclamation  of 
neutrality,  while  it  seemed  to  cut  this  country  loose  from  the  bitter 
issues  which  were  engrossing  and  perplexing  Europe,  by  no 
means  did  so  in  reality.  Issues  which  were  convulsing  the  Old 
World  could  not  but  be  re-echoed  in  the  New ;  and  Americans 
inevitably  took  sides.  Some  Philadelphians  led  by  "Peter  Por 
cupine"  hailed  the  Neutrality  Proclamation  with  satisfaction  so 
far  as  it  went,  but  would  have  preferred  an  alliance  with  Great 
Britain.  But  the  sympathizers  of  France  were  more  numerous, 
and  our  citizen  heard  high  debates  between  the  two  factions. 
Indeed,  the  Jacobin  Club  which  was  carrying  all  before  it  in 
France  furnished  the  model  which  was  imitated  in  this  country 
when  the  Democratic  Society  of  Pennsylvania  was  founded  in 
Philadelphia  and  began  to  establish  affiliated  clubs  in  the  counties 
throughout  the  state.  Our  citizen,  unless  he  was  a  great  radical, 
and  a  member,  probably  heard  but  little  of  the  Democratic  So 
ciety  at  the  time  of  its  foundation  in  1793.  But  when  the  pent- 
up  grievances  of  the  agrarian  west  burst  forth  in  the  Whiskey 
Rebellion  in  1794,  and  the  President  of  the  United  States  in  a 
message  to  Congress  cast  the  blame  for  that  rising  upon  the  radi 
cal  societies,  the  press  at  once  was  filled  with  denunciations  of 
them,  and  our  citizen  must  have  been  gravely  troubled.  The 
publication  of  the  Jay  Treaty  and  the  debate  in  Congress  to 
which  it  gave  rise  in  1794  and  the  early  part  of  1795,  again 
brought  forward  serious  issues  of  foreign  policy.  Truly  these 
were  stirring  times. 

With  the  presidential  election  of  1796,  Washington  was  re 
tiring  from  public  life;  and  our  citizen  found  himself  obliged  to 
decide  between  rival  candidates  and  rival  policies,  and  to  take 
sides  in  a  great  party  contest,  the  first  of  its  kind  with  which  he 
had  ever  been  confronted.  In  the  following  year  the  abrupt 


132  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

dismissal  of  Monroe,  the  American  Ambassador  to  France,  led 
to  a  serious  crisis  in  Franco-American  relations,  a  crisis  which 
was  heightened  in  the  sequel  by  the  X  Y  Z  Episode,  and  led  to 
a  virtual  state  of  war  between  the  two  countries;  and  if  our  citi 
zen  was  one  who  had  leanings  towards  the  French  cause,  he 
must  have  been  much  disturbed.  The  passage  of  the  Alien  and 
Sedition  Acts  in  1798  seemed  to  the  proponents  of  states  rights  a 
most  vexatious,  dangerous,  and  unconstitutional  exercise  of  ar 
bitrary  power  by  the  federal  government.  Virginia  and  Ken 
tucky  promptly  countered  with  resolutions  which  practically  set 
the  national  government  at  defiance ;  and  the  whole  question  of 
nullification  was  thrown  open.  The  very  existence  of  the  Union 
seemed  to  be  placed  in  peril.  The  Philadelphia  press  was  filled 
with  the  discussion.  But  fortunately  the  example  of  Kentucky 
and  Virginia  was  not  followed,  and  the  Union  remained  secure. 
With  the  election  of  1800,  the  hitherto  dominant  Federalists 
found  themselves  split  into  two  factions  by  the  bitter  controversy 
between  their  leaders,  Hamilton  and  Adams ;  and  their  oppon 
ents,  the  Republicans,  were  able  to  come  into  power.  Our  citi 
zen  must  have  found  it  even  more  difficult  to  cast  his  vote  wisely 
on  this  occasion  than  he  did  in  1796. 

Add  to  all  these  major  issues,  the  chronic  discussion  over 
the  use  of  titles,  which  occupied  the  press  from  1789  until  the 
question  was  finally  settled  by  Congress  early  in  1795,  and  the 
frequent  carpings  of  the  newspapers  because  of  his  failure  to 
be  more  assiduous  in  his  attendance  at  the  polls  on  election  day, 
and  the  fact  that  his  life  was  frequently  placed  in  jeopardy  by 
reason  of  repeated  outbreaks  of  epidemic  yellow  fever;  and  one 
must  form  a  picture  of  the  life  of  our  citizen  of  Philadelphia, 
which  if  he  was  attentive  to  his  private  business,  must  have 
been  lacking  neither  in  interest  nor  in  occupation.  ^ 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

MANUSCRIPT 

Minutes  of  the  Democratic  Society,  1793-1794.  An  original  manuscript 
preserved  in  the  Manuscript  Room  of  the  Pennsylvania  Historical 
Society  Library.  Hand  made  paper,  8  x  13  inches.  68  folios,  but 
incomplete ;  the  following  are  preserved :  pp.  17-18,  21-22,  27-76,  85-88, 
95-150,  163-184.  Written  in  various  hands,  and  without  signatures  of 
secretaries. 

NEWSPAPERS* 

Aurora  General  Advertiser  (daily).  Continuation  of  The  General  Ad 
vertiser.  From  August  30  to  October  19,  1799,  published  at  Bristol. 
Publishers:  1795  to  September  9,  1798,  Benjamin  Franklin  Bache; 
November  1  to  13,  1798,  Margaret  H.  Bache;  November  14,  1798, 
"published  for  the  Heirs  of  Benjamin  Franklin  Bache";  March  8, 
1800,  William  Duane.  P.  H.  S.,  November  8,  1794  to  1801 ;  Ridg- 
way,  1794  to  1800.  Suspended  publication  from  September  10  to 
October  31,  1798. 

Carey's  Daily  Advertiser.  Publishers  :  James  Carey  and  John  Markland. 
P.  H.  S.,  1797,  February  10  to  September  8;  Ridgway,  1797. 

Carey's  United  States  Recorder.  Established  January,  1798.  Publishers: 
James  Carey.  P.  H.  S.,  1797  (incomplete)  ;  Ridgway,  1798. 

Claypoole's  American  Daily  Advertiser.  Continuation  of  Dunlap  and 
Claypoole's  American  Daily  Advertiser  (q.  v.)  Publishers:  1796, 
David  C.  and  Septimus  Claypoole ;  1799,  David  G.  Claypoole.  P.  H. 
S.,  January  1,  1796,  to  October  1,  1800;  Ridgway,  January  1,  1796, 
to  October  1,  1800.  Continued  as  Paulson's  American  Daily  Adver 
tiser,  October  1,  1800. 

Duniap's  American  Daily  Advertiser.  Continuation  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Packet  and  Daily  Advertiser.  Publisher:  John  Dunlap.  P.  H.  S., 
January  1,  1791,  to  December  9,  1793;  Ridgway,  January  1,  1791,  to 
December  9,  1793.  Suspended  September  15  to  December  1,  1793,  on 
account  of  yellow  fever.  Continued  December  9,  as  Dunlap  and 
Claypoole's  American  Daily  Advertiser. 

Dunlap  and  Claypoole's  American  Daily  Advertiser.  Continuation  of 
Duniap's  American  Daily  Advertiser.  Publishers:  John  Dunlap  and 
David  C.  Claypoole.  P.  H.  S.,  December  9,  1793,  to  January  1,  1796; 
Ridgway,  December  9,  1793,  to  January  1,  1796.  Continued  as  Clay 
poole's  American  Daily  Advertiser,  January  1,  1796. 

Finlay's  American  Naval  and  Commercial  Register  (semi-weekly).  Es 
tablished  December,  1795.  Publisher:  Samuel  Finlay.  Ridgway, 
December,  1795,  to  December,  1797.  Publication  suspended  in  De 
cember,  1797. 

Federal  Gazette  and  the  Philadelphia  Evening  Post  (daily).  Established 
October  1,  1788.  Title  varies:  April  16,  1790,  Federal  Gazette  and 
the  Philadelphia  Daily  Advertiser.  Publisher :  Andrew  Brown.  P. 
H.  S.,  1789  (stray  nos.  March  19,  September  8,  November  16),  Sep 
tember  1,  1792,  to  December  31,  1793;  Ridgway,  1790  to  1794.  Con- 


*  The  best  collection  of  Philadelphia  newspapers  of  this  period  is  to  be  found 
in  the  Pennsylvania  Historical  Society  Library.  There  is  also  a  valuable  collection 
at  the  Ridgway  Branch  of  the  Philadelphia  Library  Company.  The  following  ab 
breviations  are  used:  P.  H.  S. — Pennsylvania  Historical  Society;  Ridgway — Ridg 
way  Branch  of  the  Philadelphia  Library  Company. 


134  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 


tinned  as  the  Philadelphia  Gazette  and   Universal  Daily  Advertiser,. 
January,  1794. 

Freeman's  Journal,  or  the  North  American  Intelligencer  (weekly).  Es 
tablished  April  25,  1781.  Publisher:  Francis  Bailey.  P.  H.  S.,  1789 
to  1791  (with  gaps)  ;  Ridgway,  1790  to  1792.  Publication  suspended 
in  1792. 

Gales's  Independent  Gazetteer  (semi-weekly).  Continuation  of  The  In 
dependent  Gazetteer.  Publisher :  Joseph  Gales.  P.  H.  S.,  September 
16,  1796,  to  December  30,  1796,  January  3  to  March  7,  1797  (most). 

Gazette  of  the  United  States  (semi-weekly).  Removed  from  New  York 
October,  1790.  Title  varies:  1794,  January  7,  Gazette  of  the  United 
States  and  Daily  Evening  Advertiser;  1795,  Gazette  of  the  United 
States;  1796,  July  1,  Gazette  of  the  United  States  and  Philadelphia 
Daily  Advertiser;  1800,  October  13,  Gazette  of  the  United  States  and 
Daily  Advertiser.  Publishers:  1790  to  1798,  John  Fenno ;  1798  to 
1800,  John  Ward  Fenno;  October  13,  1800,  to  1802,  C.  P.  Wayne. 
P.  H.  S.,  April  15,  1789,  to  1801  (incomplete),  April,  1790,  to  94,  and 
January  to  June,  1797,  missing;  Ridgway,  1790-1795  to  1796,  stray 
number  in  1798.  Publication  temporarily  suspended  September  18, 
1793.  Continued  as  the  United  States  Gazette  in  1804. 

General  Advertiser  and  Political,  Commercial,  Agricultural,  and  Literary 
Journal  (daily).  Established  1790.  Title  varies:  1791,  The  General 
Advertiser.  Publisher:  Benjamin  Franklin  Bache.  P.  H.  S.,  Oc 
tober  1,  1790,  to  November  8,  1794;  Ridgway,  1790  to  1794.  Dis 
continued  from  September  26  to  November  25,  1793,  on  account  of 
yellow  fever.  Continued  as  the  Aurora  General  Advertiser,  No 
vember  8,  1794. 

Independent  Gazetteer  or  the  Chronicle  of  Freedom  (weekly).  Established 
April  13,  1782.  Issued  as  a  semi-weekly  from  September  17  to  De 
cember  17,  1782,  October  7,  1786,  changed  to  daily.  Title  varies : 
1782,  The  Independent  Gazetteer  and  Agricultural  Repository;  1794, 
The  Independent  Gazetteer.  Publishers:  1782,  Eleazer  Oswald;  1783, 
E.  Oswald  and  D.  Humphreys;  June,  1784,  E.  Oswald.  P.  H.  S., 
1789  (complete),  February  8,  1794,  to  September  16,  1796,  1790  to 
93  (stray  nos.)  ;  Ridgway,  1790  to  1796.  Continued  by  Joseph  Gales 
as  Gales's  Independent  Gazetteer,  September  16,  1796. 

The  Mail;  or  Claypoole's  Daily  Advertiser.  Established  June,  1791. 
Publisher:  David  C.  Claypoole.  P.  H.  S.,  June  1,  1791,  to  December 
29,  1792.  Merged  with  Dunlap's  American  Daily  Advertiser  in  No 
vember,  1793. 

Merchant's  Daily  Advertiser.  P.  H.  S.,  January  6,  1797,  to  June  30,  1798; 
Ridgway,  June  22  and  June  29,  1798. 

National  Gazette  (semi-weekly).  Established  October  31,  1791.  Pub 
lishers  :  Childs  and  Swaine  for  Philip  Freneau.  Ridgway,  Oc 
tober  31,  1791,  to  October  26,  1793.  Publication  suspended  October 
26,  1793. 

Neue  Philadelphische  Correspondenz.  Publisher :  Melchior  Steiner. 
Continued  as  Philadelphische  Correspondenz. 

New  World  (daily).  Established  1795.  Title  varies:  September  19  and 
20,  1796,  The  New  World  or  The  Morning  and  Evening  Gazette; 
October  26,  1796,  The  New  World.  Publisher:  Samuel  Harrison 
Smith.  Ridgway,  1796  to  1797.  Publication  suspended  in  1797. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  135 

Pennsylvania  Gazette  (weekly).  Established  1728.  January  to  June, 
1778,  published  at  Yorktown,  Pennsylvania.  Title  varies:  1779,  The 
Pennsylvania  Gazette  and  Weekly  Advertiser;  April  3,  1782,  The 
Pennsylvania  Gazette;  July  31,  1782,  Pennsylvania  Gazette  and  Weekly 
Advertiser;  September  11,  1782,  Pennsylvania  Gazette.  Publishers: 
1735  to  1748,  B.  Franklin;  January  12,  1748,  to  1766,  B.  Franklin  and 
D.  Hall;  February  6,  1766,  David  Hall;  May  8,  1766,  David  Hall 
and  William  Sellers.  P.  H.  S.,  1789  to  1790,  1794  to  1796  (nearly 
complete)  ;  Ridgway,  1790  to  1800.  Became  Saturday  Evening  Post, 
August  4,  1821. 

Pennsylvania  Journal  or  the  Weekly  Advertiser.  Established  December, 
1742.  Became  a  semi-weekly  June  23,  1781.  January  7,  1789,  again 
published  weekly.  Publishers:  1743  to  1766,  William  Bradford; 
September  4,  1766,  to  1779,  William  and  Thomas  Bradford;  1779 
to  1781,  Thomas  Bradford;  May  2,  1781,  to  1782,  P.  Hall  and  T. 
Bradford;  June  12,  1782,  T.  Bradford.  P.  H.  S.,  1789  to  1793 
(some  lacunae)  ;  Ridgway,  1790  to  1793.  Continued  as  the  True 
American,  in  1797. 

Pennsylvania  Mercury  and  Universal  Advertiser  (weekly).  Established 
August  20,  1784.  1788  changed  to  tri-weekly,  1790  to  weekly.  Pub 
lisher :  1784  to  1788,  Daniel  Humphreys;  1788  to  1790,  David  Hum 
phreys;  1790,  Daniel  Humphreys.  P.  H.  S.,  1789  to  December  8, 
1791  (with  lacunae  and  gaps)  ;  Ridgway,  1790. 

Pennsylvania  Packet  and  the  General  Advertiser  (weekly).  Established 
October  28,  1771.  For  a  time  between  September  16,  1777,  and  June 
30,  1778,  published  at  Lancaster,  Pa.;  July  2,  1778,  tri-weekly;  April 
8,  1780,  semi-weekly;  June  12,  1781,  tri-weekly;  September  21,  1784, 
daily.  Title  varies  :  October  25,  1773,  Dunlap's  Pennsylvania  Packet 
or  the  General  Advertiser;  November  29,  1777,  Pennsylvania  Packet 
or  the  General  Advertiser;  September  21,  1784,  Pennsylvania  Packet 
and  Daily  Advertiser.  Publishers:  1771  to  1780,  John  Dunlap;  Oc 
tober  17,  1780,  to  1781,  John  Dunlap  and  David  C.  Claypoole;  Jan 
uary  2,  1781,  to  1784,  David  C.  Claypoole;  September  21,  1784,  John 
Dunlap  and  D.  C  Claypoole.  P.  H.  S.,  1789  to  1790;  Ridgway,  1790 
to  1791.  Continued  as  Dunlap's  American  Daily  Advertiser,  Jan 
uary  1,  1791. 

Philadelphia  Gazette  and  Universal  Daily  Advertiser  (daily).  Contin 
uation  of  the  Federal  Gazette  and  Philadelphia  Daily  Advertiser. 
Title  varies :  June  20,  1800,  Philadelphia  Gazette  and  Daily  Adver 
tiser.  Publisher:  1794  to  1799,  Andrew  Brown;  July  1,  1799,  An 
drew  Brown  and  Samuel  Relf.  P.  H.  S.,  1794  to  1796,  1798  to  1800 
(with  lacunae)  ;  Ridgway,  1794  to  1801.  After  1801  was  known  as 
Relfs  Gazette. 

Philadelphia  Minerva  (weekly).  Established  1795.  Publisher:  Willkm 
T.  Palmer.  P.  H.  S.,  February  6,  1796,  to  January  20,  1798.  Pub- 
cation  suspended  July,  1798. 

Philadelphische  Correspondent.  Continuation  of  Neue  'Philadelphische 
Correspondent.  Publishers :  Steiner  and  Kammerer.  P.  H.  S., 
1789  to  1800  (many  lacunae).  Continued  as  Pennsylvanishe  Corres 
pondent,  1798. 

Porcupine's  Gazette  (daily).  Established  March  4,  1797.  Title  varies: 
March  4  to  April  22,  1797,  Porcupine's  Gazette  and  United  States 


136  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 


Advertiser;  April  24,  1797,  Porcupine's  Gazette.  Publisher:  Wil 
liam  Cobbett.  P.  H.  S.,  March  8,  1797,  to  August  27,  1799;  Ridgway, 
March  4,  1797,  to  September  6,  1799.  Changed  to  a  weekly  and 
continued  at  Bustleton,  Pa.,  September  6,  1799,  on  account  of  yel 
low  fever  in  Philadelphia. 

Paulson's  American  Daily  Advertiser.  Continuation  of  Claypoole's 
American  Daily  Advertiser.  Publisher:  Zachariah  Poulson.  P.  H. 
H.,  October  1,  1800,  to  1801;  Ridgway,  October  1,  1800,  to  1801. 

True  American  and  Commercial  Advertiser  (daily).  Continuation  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Journal  and  the  Weekly  Advertiser.  Publisher :  1798, 
Thomas  Bradford.  P.  H.  S.,  July  2,  1798,  to  1801 ;  Ridgway,  1798, 
(stray  numbers). 

Universal  Gazette  (weekly).  Continuation  of  the  Independent  Gazetteer 
by  J.  Gales.  Publisher  :  Samuel  Harrison  Smith.  P.  H.  S.,  March 
20,  27,  1801,  June  26  to  August  21,  1800.  Publication  suspended  from 
September  11  to  November  6,  1800,  when  the  paper  was  resumed 
at  Washington,  D.  C,  under  the  same  title. 

PAMPHLETS 

"A  Citizen  of  Philadelphia,"  An  {Essay  on  the  Seat  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  and  the  Exclusive  Jurisdiction  of  Congress  over  a  Ten  Miles 
District.  Philadelphia,  1789. 

"A  Farmer,"  Five  Letters  addressed  to  the  Yeomanry  of  the  United 
States,  containing  some  Observations  on  the  dangerous  scheme  of 
Governor  Duer  and  Mr.  Secretary  Hamilton  to  establish  National 
Manufactures.  Philadelphia,  1792. 

"An  American  Farmer,"  Letters  addressed  to  the  Yeomanry  of  the  United 
States,  containing  some  Observations  on  the  Funding  and  Banking 
Systems.  Philadelphia,  1793. 

"Helvidius,"  Letters  written  in  reply  to  "Pacificus"  on  the  President's 
Proclamation  of  Neutrality.  Philadelphia,  1793. 

"Pacificus,"  Letters,  written  in  justification  of  the  President's  Proclama 
tion  of  Neutrality.  Philadelphia,  1793. 

Principles,  Articles  and  Regulations  agreed  upon  by  the  members  of  the 
Democratic  Society  of  Pennsylvania,  May  30,  1793.  Philadelphia, 
1793. 

"'A  Citizen,"  A  Review  of  the  Revenue  System  adopted  by  the  First  Con 
gress  under  the  Federal  Constitution.  In  Thirteen  Letters  to  a 
Friend.  Philadelphia,  1794. 

"Germanicus,"  Letters  to  the  Citizens  of  the  United  States.  Philadelphia, 
1794. 

A  Definition  of  Parties  or  the  Political  Effects  of  the  Paper  System  con 
sidered.  Philadelphia,  1794. 

An  Enquiry  into  the  Principles  and  Tendency  of  Certain  Public  Measures. 
Philadelphia,  1794. 

"Caius,"  Address  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  on  Neutrality. 
Philadelphia,  1795. 

"Camillus,"  Letters  V,  VI,  VII,  VIII.     Philadelphia,  1795. 

"Cato,"  Observations  on  Mr.  Jay's  Treaty,  I  and  II.     Philadelphia,  1795. 

Examination  of  the  Treaty  of  Amity,  Commerce  and  Navigation  between 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain.  Philadelphia,  1795. 


PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  1789-1801  137 


"Curtius,"  Vindication  of  the  Treaty  of  Amity,  Commerce  and  Navigation 
with  Great  Britain.  XII  numbers.  Philadelphia,  1795. 

"Porcupine,  Peter,"  A  Little  Plain  English,  addressed  to  the  People  of  the 
United  States  on  the  Treaty  Negotiations  with  his  Britannic 
Majesty  and  on  the  conduct  of  the  President  relative  thereto,  in 
answer  to  Letters  of  Franklin.  Philadelphia,  1795. 

The  American  Remembrancer,  or  an  Impartial  Collection  of  Essays.  Re 
solves,  Speeches,  etc.,  relative  to  the  Treaty  with  Great  Britain. 
Philadelphia,  1795. 

Aristocracy;  An  Epic  Poem.     Philadelphia,   1795. 

Features  of  Mr.  Jay's  Treaty.  To  which  is  annexed  a  View  of  the  Com 
merce  of  the  United  States  as  it  stands  at  present  and  as  it  is  fixed 
by  Mr.  Jay's  Treaty.  Philadelphia,  1795. 

Political  Observations.     1795. 

A  Rub  from  Snub,  or  a  Cursory  Analytical  Epistle  addressed  to  Peter 
Porcupine.  Philadelphia,  1795. 

A  Short  History  of  the  Nature  and  Consequences  of  Excise  Laws  includ 
ing  some  account  of  the  Recent  Interruption  to  the  Manufactories 
of  Snuff  and  Refined  Sugar.  Philadelphia,  1795. 

Treaty  of  Amity,  Commerce  and  Navigation  between  his  Britannic  Ma 
jesty  and  the  United  States  of  America.  To  which  is  annexed  a 
Copious  Appendix.  Philadelphia,  1795. 

"Porcupine,  Peter,"  A  New  Year's  Gift  to  the  Democrats,  or  Observations 
on  a  Pamphlet  entitled  "A  Vindication  of  Mr.  Randolph's  Resigna 
tion."  Philadelphia,  1796. 

Duane,  William,  Truth  Will  Out.  The  Foul  Charges  of  the  Tories 
against  the  ^Editor  of  the  Aurora  Repelled  by  Positive  Proof  and 
Plain  Truth  and  the  Base  Calumniators  put  to  Shame.  Philadelphia, 
1798. 

A  Report  of  the  Extraordinary  Transactions  which  took  place  at  Phila 
delphia  in  February,  1799.  In  consequence  of  a  Memorial  from  cer 
tain  Natives  of  Ireland  to  Congress,  praying  a  Repeal  of  the  Alien 
Bill.  Philadelphia,  1799. 

"A  Federalist,"  A  Letter  to  General  Hamilton  occasioned  by  his  letter  to 
President  Adams.  Philadelphia,  1800. 

A  Report  of  an  action  for  a  Libel  brought  by  Dr.  Benjamin  Rush  against 
William  Cobbett,  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania,  December 
term,  1799,  for  certain  defamatory  publications  in  a  newspaper  en 
titled  Porcupine's  Gazette.  Philadelphia,  1800. 

COLLECTED  SOURCES 

Adams,  John,   Works  of,  ed.  C.  F.  Adams.     10  vols.     Boston,   1856. 
Hamilton,  Alexander,   Works  of,  ed.  H.  C.  Lodge.     Federal     Edition,   12 

vols.     New  York  and  London,  1904. 
Jefferson,  Thomas,  Writings  of,  ed.  P.  L.  Ford.     10  vols.     New  York  and 

London,  1895. 
Madison,  James,  Writings  of,  ed.  Gaillard  Hunt.    9  vols.     New  York  and 

London,  1900. 
Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  ed.  J.  D.   Richardson.     10  vols. 

Washington,    1897. 
Public  Statutes  at  Large   of   the    United  States   of  America,   1789-1845, 

ed.  Richard  Peters.     Boston,  1861. 


138  SMITH  COLLEGE  STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

Rush,  Benjamin,  A  Memorial  containing  Travels  through  Life  or  Sun 
dry  Incidents  in  the  Life  of,  ed.  L.  A.  Biddle.  Philadelphia,  1905. 

Washington,  George,  Writings  of,  ed.  W.  C.  Ford.  14  vols.  New  York 
and  London,  1893. 

SECONDARY  WORKS 

Appleton,  Cyclopaedia  of  American  Biography,  ed.  J.  G.  Wilson  and  John 
Fiske.  7  vols.  New  York,  1887. 

Austin,  Mary  S.,  Philip  Freneau,  the  Poet  of  the  Revolution;  a  History 
of  his  Life  and  Times.  New  York,  1901. 

Bassett,  J.  S.,  The  Federalist  System.     New  York  and  London,  1906. 

Beard,  C  A.,  An  Economic  Interpretation  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  New  York,  1913.  Economic  Origins  of  Jefferson- 
ian  Democracy.  New  York,  1915. 

Bradford  Genealogy,  compiled  by   S.    S.    Purple,    1873. 

Clark,  A.  C.,  William  Duane.  "Read  before  the  Columbia  Historical  So 
ciety,  February  13,  1905." 

Claypoole  Genealogy,  compiled  by  Rebecca  I.  Graff.     Philadelphia,   1893. 

Fish,  C.  R.,  American  Diplomacy.    New  York,  1915. 

Forman,  S.  E.,  The  Political  Activities  of  Philip  Freneau.  Johns  Hop 
kins  University  Studies,  vol.  XX.  Baltimore,  1902. 

Hazen,  C.  D.,  Contemporary  American  Opinion  of  the  French  Revolution. 
Baltimore,  1897. 

Hudson,  Frederic,  Journalism  in  the  United  States,  1690-1872.  New 
York,  1873. 

Melville,  L.  T.,  Life  and  Letters  of  William  Cobbett  in  ^England  and 
America.  2  vols.  London,  New  York,  Toronto,  1913. 

McMaster,  J.  B.,  and  Stone,  F.  D.,  Pennsylvania  and  the  Federal  Con 
stitution,  1787-1788.  Philadelphia,  1888. 

McMaster,  J.  B.,  History  of  the  United  States.  8  vols.  New  York, 
1883-1914. 

Scharf,  J.  T.,  and  Westcott,  Thompson,  History  of  Philadelphia,  1609- 
1884.  3  vols.  Philadelphia,  1884. 

Thomas,  Isaiah,  History  of  Printing  in  America.     2  vols.     Albany,   1874. 


VITA 

I,  Margaret  Woodbury,  was  born  in  Columbus,  Ohio,  October  2,  1893. 
My  father  is  Benjamin  Woodbury,  and  my  mother  Margaret  Evans 
Woodbury.  Upon  graduation  from  Central  High  School,  Columbus,  in 
1911,  I  entered  Ohio  State  University,  from  which  I  received  the  de 
gree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  in  1915.  In  October,  1915,  I  became  a  graduate 
student  at  Bryn  Mawr  College.  In  1915-16  and  1918-19  I  was  a  scholar  in 
History;  in  1916-18  I  held  the  Resident  Fellowship  in  History.  My  work 
at  Bryn  Mawr  College  has  been  directed  by  Dr.  William  Roy  Smith,  Pro 
fessor  of  History,  Dr.  Marion  Parris  Smith,  Professor  of  Economics, 
and  Dr.  Howard  Levi  Gray,  Professor  of  History. 

My  Major  work  in  Bryn  Mawr  College  has  been  in  American  History, 
Mediaeval  and  Modern  European  History  being  my  Associated  Minor, 
and  Economics  my  Independent  Minor.  My  preliminary  examinations 
for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  were  passed  on  January  31, 
1919,  and  my  final  examinations  on  May  31,  1919. 

For  assistance  in  the  preparation  of  this  dissertation,  I  am  deeply  in 
debted  to  Dr.  William  Roy  Smith  and  Dr.  Charles  Wendell  David,  of 
Bryn  Mawr  College.  I  wish  to  express  my  gratitude  for  the  unfailing 
courtesy  shown  me  by  the  officials  of  the  Library  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Historical  Society  and  of  the  Ridgway  Branch  of  the  Philadelphia  Li 
brary  Company. 


RETURN 


JVlQFFffT  LIBRARY 

LOAN  PERIOD 


] 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  RECALL 
RENEW  BOOKS  BY  CALLING  642-2452 

(NO  PHONE  RENEWALS  FOR  2-HOUR  LOANS) 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 
JON  2  0  1998 


FORM  NO.  DD19 


(J9096slO)476-A- 


LD  21A-40m-4,'63 
(D6471slO)476B 


oc&J&ftfft&S. 

Berkeley 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY  CA  94720-6000 


